Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Trust Schools

Edward Vaizey: What primary legislative changes will be required to create the new category of trust school and implement the other measures in the recent education White Paper.

Ruth Kelly: Annex A to the White Paper sets out the legislative changes needed to implement trust schools and the other measures in the White Paper.

Edward Vaizey: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Her colleague in another place said that hardly any legislative changes were needed for trust schools. Is not that because these proposals have been watered down so that, in reality, trust schools are no different from foundation schools? Can the Secretary of State give me three specific differences between trust schools and the existing arrangements?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we are building on a model that is already out there—schools that can acquire a foundation. Voluntary-aided schools are a good example of that in practice, and there are many others. We propose to put safeguards into the Bill to ensure that external partners that want to get involved with schools are committed to raising educational standards, have charitable objectives, are able to avail themselves of the power to innovate, and have a duty to promote race relations and social cohesion.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been hoist on their own hyperbole by talking rather carelessly about independent trust schools? The fact is that, as it says in the White Paper, they will be part of the family of local authority schools and will not have the independence that academies have. In many ways, the local authority relationship will be just as it has been in the past.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of these matters, is right to say that under the new mechanism trust schools will be part of the local authority family of schools. They will be funded by the local authority, which will play a strategic role in improving standards and in commissioning school places in the right places to meet pupil needs and the demands of parents.

Sammy Wilson: According to newspaper reports this week, restricted policy documents circulating within the Minister's Department state that trust schools will be able to decide on the admissions criteria that are in their best interests. Will the Minister confirm that such a document exists? Does she accept that that means that schools could use academic selection as part of their criteria? Does she accept that the Prime Minister, the White Paper and education experience in Northern Ireland have proved that that is the fairest and best way of selecting youngsters for post-primary schools?

Ruth Kelly: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's case. I have been clear about this, and the White Paper is clear about it. Trust schools have to operate with regard to the code of admissions, within the law, which means that there will be no return to selection and the divisive 11-plus. If any unfair criteria are used, they can be overturned by the adjudicator, which acts on a statutory basis in the public interest.

Natascha Engel: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Kerry McCarthy.

Natascha Engel: I have obviously made a great impression!
	What obligation will trust schools have to looked-after children, who are among the most vulnerable children in society? We talk about children who leave with five good GCSEs, but what are we doing about those who leave with no qualifications at all?

Ruth Kelly: I assure my hon. Friend that she has made a great impression on me in the months that she has been in this House, and I am sure that she will continue to do so in years to come.
	My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to looked-after children. They are a group of children very close to my own heart, and in the months to come I would like   my Department to produce quality proposals specifically dealing with their educational attainment. We need to make regulations to give looked-after children priority in admissions not only to community schools but to trust schools. I am committed to doing that.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I am right this time. I call Patrick McLoughlin.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased to say that you are, Mr. Speaker, as always.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that the great difference between trust schools and grant-maintained schools is that the latter were established only after parents had a ballot? What right will parents have as to whether schools are trust schools?

Ruth Kelly: It will be up to the school's governing body to decide whether it wants to bring in an external partner, following consultation with parents. As a last resort, the local authority will have the ability to decide whether the trust is in the best interests of the pupils in that area, whether educational standards would rise and whether the majority of parents would feel happy with adopting a trust.

David Kidney: Teachers in Stafford are much more interested in behavioural measures in school and individual learning plans tailored to students' needs. Will such measures be introduced without the need for lengthy legislation?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right that we need a clear right to discipline. We are committed to introducing that in the legislation. However, trust schools will make it easier to replicate success. For example, when they tailor education specifically to the needs of pupils in their area or link up with a local business on a charitable basis that can provide work placements and use the flexibility to tailor the curriculum to meet the needs of pupils in the area, it will be much easier via the trust school mechanism to replicate that model. All the trust model is trying to do is encourage collaboration throughout an area where a trust has a specific plan to encourage that sort of education.

Edward Davey: Will the Secretary of State publish before the recess all the research that she has on the impact on social segregation of allowing schools to set their admissions policy? Does she regret the fact that a few schools already discourage from attending and weed out local disadvantaged children? How would allowing thousands more schools, including primary schools, to set their admissions policies stop those unfair practices?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman and I had a good discussion about that yesterday. I drew to his attention the fact that the Department is working on drawing up a measure on social segregation. We do not believe that existing measures in the public domain do justice to the issue. In comparing local authorities and considering the impact of own-admission policies on social segregation, the preliminary conclusions of our research show that there is no correlation between the number of own-admission authorities and social segregation. Indeed, they show that, in some areas where the vast majority of schools are community schools, social segregation has been much higher. When we have finished the research we will be in a position to publish it.

David Chaytor: My right hon. Friend knows that there is concern about the exact status of the code of practice on school admissions. Does she think that it is worth considering the argument for including the code of practice as a schedule in the forthcoming Bill?

Ruth Kelly: If my hon. Friend is asking whether we are prepared to make the code of practice statutory, I do not believe that that is necessary to achieve the objectives that he sets for the policy and the Department. The code is established on a statutory basis, but there is discretion and flexibility in it to adapt admissions to meet the specific ends of a school and the pupils in the area. For example, if a school wanted to develop a specialism, the code provides that it could choose 10 per cent. by aptitude. The adjudicator operates on a statutory basis and can make binding decisions for all non-religious schools. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the code's importance in ensuring that all schools in the maintained sector operate on the basis of fair admissions.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. David Cameron.

David Cameron: Thank you for recognising me, Mr. Speaker.
	The White Paper states that the Government's aim is
	"the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying schools."
	We support that principle. Part of it is giving the new trust schools, such as the academies and the foundation schools, control over their admissions. Instead of endlessly reassuring her Back Benchers, will the Secretary of State explain what benefits she thinks the new freedom will bring?

Ruth Kelly: It can be important for a school in certain circumstances to have control over the criteria that it sets for its admissions. For example, if a school operates in an area where specific ethnic groups are highly concentrated, it might be appropriate for it to move away from a catchment-area system towards one that promotes a mixed-ability intake from a much broader area. On the other hand, it may be appropriate, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), for a music college to be able to select 10 per cent. by aptitude to build up an orchestra in the school. It could then share best practice on music with other schools in the area. That is the sort of freedom that I want. I do not want the sort of freedom that the hon. Gentleman talks about when he says that his only objection to the city academy programme is that it cannot select on ability.

David Cameron: Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State said that the code of practice on admissions would not be made a statutory code. Today, she said that she did not think that that was necessary. Can I ask her to go a bit further and rule out that change?

Ruth Kelly: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the code achieves its ends of ruling out selection by ability on its current statutory basis. He is confused—the code already operates on a statutory basis. Schools take it into account, and then the adjudicator, which is also statutory, can use its discretion to say whether the school has interpreted it correctly. Interpretation of the code, however, is very important for schools that want to create their own distinctive ethos.

Bookstart

Tim Loughton: What criteria are used in selecting books to be given free to pre-school age children under the Bookstart programme.

Maria Eagle: Bookstart is administered by Booktrust, an independent charity that invites all UK publishers to submit books for consideration. If accepted, they are generally acquired from sponsoring publishers at a fraction of the usual retail cost. Booktrust chooses books on the basis of quality and adherence to safety standards, as well as content and suitability. It operates a selection panel that meets approximately every six to 12 months. The panel consists of librarians, health visitors, speech and language therapists, early-years educationists and Bookstart team members. It is independent and has no Government involvement.

Tim Loughton: May I add my support for the invaluable work that Booktrust does and for the Government's support for the Bookstart programme? We all know that reading between parents and very young children, which is an important part of attachment theory, can help their development later. What is she doing to ensure that as many parents as possible are able to access this scheme, particularly if they have reading difficulties themselves? Given the great expertise shown by this charity, which has been going since the 19th century, will she ensure that the choice of books and materials is left to the experts at the charity, and is not undermined by the heavy hand of political correctness and interference from within her Department?

Maria Eagle: We do not interfere with the way in which Bookstart carries out its functions. We encourage all parents, local authorities and Sure Start units to make sure that they take advantage of it. Between 2005 and 2008, we expect to give out 4.5 million books. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the aims, which are to enable and support children's early communication, language development and social and emotional development, and to get parents used to reading to their children and sharing storytelling and rhymes. That will assist all children who are able to access the scheme to develop to their full potential.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister mentioned the number of books that she anticipates being distributed. What is her assessment of the impact that the scheme will have on improving reading standards, and how will that be measured?

Maria Eagle: We always evaluate such schemes. Obviously, it is too soon to do so in this case. The scheme is going national, in its three different phases, from this year. There will be evaluation, but it stands to reason to expect that children who read early and often, and who get into the habit of doing so with their parents, will develop earlier the kind of skills that they need to succeed in school.

Further Education

Nadine Dorries: What assessment her Department has made of Sir   Andrew Foster's report on the further education sector; and if she will make a statement.

Ruth Kelly: Sir Andrew Foster published his report "Realising the Potential: A review of the future role of further education colleges" on 15 November. We think that it is an excellent report. It sets out clearly and convincingly the priorities that we must address. We want to take time to consider the report in discussion with colleges and other stakeholders. We shall announce in the spring the next stage of our reform of further education.

Nadine Dorries: The Minister will be aware of the significant funding gap between FE colleges and mainstream schools. She has said that she will close that gap by only half. Given that, according to the Association of Colleges, our FE colleges take many children from poorer backgrounds, does she really believe that teachers in FE colleges should be paid less than those in secondary education?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Lady is confusing two things: the funding gap and how we fund further education colleges, and the use of the money that we grant to further education colleges. Over the past eight years since 1997, funding for further education colleges has increased by 48 per cent. in real terms. Furthermore, last week, I was able to tell the Association of Colleges that we have proposals that will narrow the funding gap by 5 percentage points by the 2006–07 academic year. From 2008, further measures will narrow it by another 3 percentage points. I should have thought that she would welcome those measures.

Mary Creagh: What plans has my right hon. Friend to improve basic skills training for the most difficult and disadvantaged young people? Will further education colleges work with independent providers such as Rathbone, a charity that works with young people who are not in education, employment or training? How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the "easy" young people are not cherry-picked, and that efforts are focused on those who are terribly disadvantaged and most in need of those efforts?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is a fundamental requirement of social justice for those who do not acquire basic skills at school, or do not secure the equivalent of five good GCSEs, to have a second, third or even fourth chance to do so later in life. I recently announced that more than 1 million adults had taken advantage of our skills for life initiative, and had acquired basic skills in the work place.
	The way to deal with my hon. Friend's concerns is to give individuals the entitlement to receive that training and extra help free of charge. We are therefore reprioritising funding in the way that I described to the Association of Colleges last week. We are ensuring that public funds are used to give the most effective support to the learners who need it most.

Owen Paterson: Walford and North Shropshire college delivers 500 courses to more than 8,500 adults at 150 venues. It is proposed that such activity be undertaken by voluntary groups, museums and libraries. That is totally inappropriate in a thinly populated rural area. May I bring the principal of the college, Mr. Ron Pugh, to meet the Secretary of State and explain that the Foster report is an urban-based document that cannot work in rural areas?

Ruth Kelly: I do not accept that it is an urban-based document that will not work in rural areas, although of course we will consider all the issues raised in it carefully over the next few months. I am not aware of the position of the hon. Gentleman's further education college, but if he puts it in writing I shall be happy to discuss the best course of action with him.

Michael Foster: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing last week that she would reduce the funding gap. Her announcement was welcomed by all who are genuinely interested in further education. While the momentum is in our favour, may I urge her to go that little step further and examine the treatment of sixth-form and further education colleges for value-added tax purposes? Will she try to ensure that they are governed by the same regime as schools?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend has raised a complex and important point. As he knows, tax issues are dealt with by my right hon. Friends in the Treasury, but we discuss the issues regularly to ensure that we use facilities to best effect and meet the requirements of learners who need them most.

Stephen O'Brien: The Foster report has been welcomed by the Government and, indeed, by Members in all parts of the House. On page 52, it makes two criticisms: of the Department's micro-management of the Learning and Skills Council, and of the Learning and Skills Council's micro-management of the further education colleges. When will the Secretary of State stop micro-managing, and stop her Department micro-managing, those two disasters, in order—I quote Foster's damning verdict on the Government—
	"to lighten the impact of centralised control"
	and monitoring,
	"and minimise the duplication and undue central demands"?

Ruth Kelly: I think that the report is absolutely right to draw attention not just to the situation in FE colleges, but to what the Department and the LSC could do better. We need to reflect on the report and see whether we can improve our management of the situation. The LSC has just announced a radical programme of change, which will mean the loss of 1,300 jobs as it moves away from the process that the hon. Gentleman describes as "micro-management" towards much greater regional clarity about its role.
	I accept that my Department needs to define the boundaries between what it does and what is done by the LSC, and we are discussing with the LSC how that can be achieved.

School Refurbishments

Robert Flello: How many schools will undergo a major refurbishment in 2005.

Maria Eagle: We are investing £5.5 billion in school buildings and information and communications technology in 2005–06, including £2.1 billion for "Building Schools for the Future". The first wave of investment will enable BSF to transform secondary schools in 17 local authorities, including Stoke. BSF aims broadly to build half the schools, refurbish 35 per cent. and carry out minor works on 15 per cent.

Robert Flello: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making almost £200 million available to Stoke-on-Trent city council as part of the first wave. I am delighted that the Sandon new school will be up and running by 2007. Will my hon. Friend urge the local education authority to consult widely on how the money will be spent and which new schools will be developed, particularly with respect to Longton and Edensor high schools?

Maria Eagle: Yes, my hon. Friend will be well aware that the organisation of Stoke schools is a local matter that is subject to statutory procedures. Any proposals will have to go through those procedures, a large part of which requires consultation—and preferably agreement—locally. If local agreement is not reached, however, provision can be made for conclusions to be reached.

Nick Herbert: The Minister will know that in Scandinavian countries, schools are built for the future through the principle of school choice. In Sweden, for example, that has resulted in 500 new schools. Translated into this country, that would mean 5,000 new schools over the period of a decade. In his foreword to the education White Paper, the Prime Minister spoke in glowing terms about the Swedish reforms, but no mention is made in the body of that paper and if funding does not follow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. By my reckoning, the question is about the refurbishment of schools. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the mark.

Andy Reed: As my hon. Friend is aware, part of the programme is about extending the school day and ensuring that pupils have access to sports facilities. Will she ensure that the refurbishment links in closely with the new opportunities fund, which I believe is still lagging a little behind? It is important to make strategic choices about where the sports facilities go in local schools to match the needs of local communities.

Maria Eagle: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to mention both extended schools and the possibilities that they provide for children and young people to have somewhere to go and things to do. He is also right to stress the importance of sport and ensuring co-ordination between different capital funding streams. He will be aware that, during the spending review period, £17.5 billion of capital investment is going into our schools. That should equate to many new sports facilities all around the country.

Temporary Classrooms (Dorset)

Annette Brooke: How many temporary mobile classrooms are in use for mainstream lessons in schools under the control of Dorset local education authority; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: Dorset local education authority did not include any data about temporary buildings in its asset management data sets returned to the Department, but I understand that there are approximately 220 temporary mobile buildings at their schools. Dorset schools will receive nearly £90 million for buildings over the next three years.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her answer. Is she aware that 35 of those classrooms are on the site of Lytchett Minster upper school, representing 52 per cent. of its classrooms? They have been there for five and a half years, following a serious fire. To date, the Conservative-controlled county council has not even submitted a planning application. Meanwhile, costs are escalating, so will the Minister and her officials investigate what can be done to break through this impasse and ensure that this really good school can keep up its high standards?

Jacqui Smith: I can understand the hon. Lady's frustration on behalf of her constituents, particularly in view of how long those classrooms have been there since the fire at Lytchett Minster school. There is, of course, a limit to what the Government can do to ensure that Conservative authorities carry out their responsibilities, but I am sure that they will have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said today. I hope that they will make good use of the considerable extra investment in school buildings that the Government are putting into Dorset.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister agree that a bigger issue facing parents in my constituency is the county council's refusal to promote change, competition and choice by not allowing Highcliffe comprehensive school to expand—an expansion that could be facilitated by the use of temporary classrooms?

Jacqui Smith: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about Dorset, I am sure that he has taken up this issue with his political colleagues on the county council. This issue has been very important to this Government. In fact, we have facilitated, through capital funding, the expansion of popular and successful schools. It is of course important that local authorities also bear in mind the needs of parents and the need to ensure fair access to a diverse range of schools, and that they use the additional funding that the Government are making available to ensure that that happens. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless put pressure on his political colleagues to ensure that they do.

Further Education

David Heathcoat-Amory: What discussions she has had with the Treasury about further education funding for Somerset.

Phil Hope: On 21 October, the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), wrote to all MPs setting out the strategic direction for the learning and skills sector for 2006–08. This includes a greater funding focus on our priorities of ensuring a place in school or college, or an apprenticeship, for all young people; and—as was mentioned earlier—a focus on adults who lack a solid foundation of employability skills. These priorities are spelled out in the 14-to-19 White Paper and in the two skills White Papers that were agreed with the Treasury. They are also reflected in our FE allocations to providers in Somerset, which increased by 4 per cent. above inflation this year.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister comment on the fact that if a 16 to 18-year-old goes to a secondary school, they attract automatic funding for the school, but not if they go to a tertiary college? That puts Somerset at a severe disadvantage, because we have five excellent tertiary colleges that attract a lot of pupils from outside the county boundary, where funding does not follow the pupil. The situation is made much worse by the Government's cut in adult education funding to those colleges. Will the Minister look again at the particular problems faced by such colleges in Somerset—problems caused by his Department and the Treasury?

Phil Hope: There has been no cut in FE funding; indeed, it has increased by some 48 per cent. in real terms since 1997. That contrasts starkly with the four years in the run-up to 1997, when the average funding unit per FE student fell by about 14 per cent. So let us be clear: resources have been going into FE. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the differing funding rates for young people in different institutions. If he was in the Chamber earlier, he will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State point out that we are closing the funding gap between FE and sixth forms. It will be down to 8 per cent. next year and we will narrow the gap further. That will mean that young people can look forward to continuing investment in their education—in Somerset and elsewhere.

John Penrose: Is the Minister aware that in my part of Somerset, Weston-super-Mare college, of which I am a governor, is suffering—along with many other colleges throughout the country—from a problem that the Association of Colleges has identified as arising from the introduction of the new entitlement to free level 2 courses? That has meant a substantial loss of fee income to FE colleges from large employers in industries such as construction, engineering and catering. Such money must now be made up by the taxpayer as a dead-weight cost of the new policy, before any additional educational benefit is achieved.

Phil Hope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of level 2 funding for adults in the workplace. We have a huge skills gap, as Members in all parts of the House recognise, and we need to shift our focus—as we are doing—in the way that the Foster report described, on to providing funding for adult skills in the workplace. This system will provide a huge opportunity for colleges in the next two years, as the demand-led roll-out of the national employer training programme gives employers free, full-level entitlement. They will be able to choose the colleges that provide the training that they want, at the time when and in the place where they want it. That demand-led system will drive up skills in the work force, and provide a good opportunity for investment and for the provision of training by FE colleges.

David Heath: To return to the county of Somerset, does the Minister appreciate the difficulties that we are experiencing, as even a cursory comparison of funding for FE colleges in Somerset with that for other authorities in the south-west shows? The disproportionately high number of 16 to 18-year-olds in Somerset who go to FE colleges—rather than school sixth forms, of which there are very few—has produced a distorting effect that has squeezed substantially adult education in Somerset's FE colleges. Will the Minister talk to the Learning and Skills Council about this and look again at the figures? We are concerned that some very good college education is being lost as a result.

Phil Hope: I want to make two points. First, to meet the needs of young people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and its neighbours, funding for 16 to 18-year-olds in Somerset has gone up by no less than 12 per cent. Secondly, although there has been a shift in public funding for adult places, the hon. Gentleman should ask his local colleges about their fee structure. We are asking colleges to collect more fee income from adult learners as part of the process of rebalancing what is provided by taxpayers, learners and employers. We believe that there is scope to increase colleges' fee income so that they can maintain the courses that people value.

Truancy

Jeremy Wright: How many pupils were recorded as having at least one incident of truancy in 2004–05.

Theresa Villiers: How many pupils were recorded as having at least one incident of truancy in 2004–05.

Beverley Hughes: Figures are collected not for truancy but for unauthorised absence as a whole. In 2004–05, around 1.4 million pupils, out of a total maintained school population of more than 6.5 million pupils, were recorded as having at least one half-day session of unauthorised absence. Unauthorised absence includes pupils who arrive late, term-time holidays taken without the school's permission and absences for which the explanation is unsatisfactory, such as shopping.

Jeremy Wright: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the figure is far too high. The Government have spent just under £1 billion on combating truancy, yet the rate of unauthorised absence is higher now than when Labour came to power. Does she think that the taxpayer is getting good value for money from the Government's anti-truancy schemes?

Beverley Hughes: The amount of money that the hon. Gentleman quoted goes towards a wide range of measures, most of which, contrary to press reports, are focused on behaviour rather than truancy. However, Opposition Members need to understand the real story, which is that the 1995–96 absences total of more than 7.5 per cent. of half-day sessions missed was a record high since statistics were first collected. Since the Government took control and started bearing down on absences as a whole, the figure has fallen every year for the past four years and is now down to below 6.5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must also understand that head teachers are trying to bear down on authorised as well as unauthorised absences—for example, by refusing to give parents permission to take their children out of school for holidays in term time. That is bringing down the overall level, but it has resulted in a very small increase on last year in authorised absences. He has to take the picture as a whole—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister could write to the hon. Gentleman.

Theresa Villiers: Does the Minister agree that the Government's manifest failure to tackle truancy has been a significant contributory factor to the epidemic of antisocial behaviour under Labour? That has caused much misery to many thousands of people across the country—sadly, including in my constituency of Chipping Barnet.

Beverley Hughes: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is very ill informed. As I have just explained, unauthorised absences cover circumstances that go well beyond persistent truancy. We reckon that about 2 per cent. of pupils are persistent truants, and Government action has caused schools to bear down on that in a very deliberate way. Hot spots have been identified, and there is a fast-track system of individual case management for the young people involved. Various measures for parents, including penalty notices and prosecution, are helping to tackle the problem in a meaningful way. It is also important to give support to young people, some of whom truant because of self-esteem problems or family difficulties. For the first time, those problems are being dealt with in a real way.

Helen Jones: May I urge my right hon. Friend not to lose sight of the fact that truancy is often linked to poor behaviour in schools, and in particular to bullying? That is what causes pupils to absent themselves. As well as bearing down on parents who wilfully refuse to send their children to school, will she ensure that the causes of some children being absent are tackled properly?

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. Persistent truancy will not be tolerated: that is the bottom line, and the approach that we are encouraging schools to take. However, pupils truant for a variety of reasons. Poor self-esteem is the reason for some, while others feel that they are not doing well in school or experience serious problems at home, with parents who cannot help them to go to school regularly. It is very important that those problems are also dealt with, and schools work with local authorities and social services to ensure that that happens.

Ashok Kumar: My right hon. Friend should take no notice of the Conservative party, because when it was in power it could not care less about truancy. I praise the Government for giving our council tremendous support in tackling truancy. [Interruption.] If you wait a minute, I will tell you. Middlesbrough council—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. I call Mr. Bercow.

John Bercow: Given that one way to minimise the incidence of truancy is to maximise the number of interesting and productive lessons, will the Minister confirm that in future there will be no place whatever in our schools for the advice of Kimberley, Meek and Miller on the teaching of reading, for those three academics are on the record as saying:
	"Within the psychosemiotic framework the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps someone will get the supplementary right.

Judy Mallaber: I share my right hon. Friend's concern that we should worry about persistent truants rather than those who have one absence in a period. What action is being taken to make parents take their responsibility seriously and to give them support in preventing children from becoming and remaining persistent truants?

Beverley Hughes: Schools are operating a fast-track case management system that requires them to identify persistent truants and develop an individual action plan that involves their parents. It enables schools to use penalty notices and the threat of prosecution if parents cannot within 12 weeks show an improvement in their child's attendance. It is an individualised, focused approach that enables schools to address some of the needs of young people and parents. It is showing good results. There has been an overall 11 per cent. improvement where the fast-track management system is being used.

Setting/Streaming

David Evennett: what measures her Department has introduced since 1997 to promote setting and streaming in schools.

Jacqui Smith: Since 1997, when the Government's first White Paper on schools made clear the presumption that setting should be the norm in secondary schools, we have used our national strategies, the gifted and talented programme, case studies and research evidence to help schools to consider a range of ways to group by ability. That is why there is more setting by ability in secondary schools now than there was in 1997.

David Evennett: I note the Minister's reply, but for the past eight years the Government have allowed political dogma to dominate their education policies, not the best interests of children. We welcome some aspects of the recent White Paper and hope to see the return of setting and streaming across the majority of schools. What assurances can the Minister give that setting and streaming will become the norm in all schools to allow children to develop their full potential and achieve excellence at their own pace and according to their own aptitude?

Jacqui Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman has let political dogma get in the way of, first, listening to my answer and, secondly, understanding what the Government have put in place. In 1997 we made it clear in the first schools White Paper that, unless a school can demonstrate that it is getting better than expected results through a different approach, we would presume that setting should be the norm in secondary schools. We backed that up with support for our national strategies through guidance to teachers—the sort of guidance and support that, in the 11 years I spent as a teacher, I never received from the previous Government.

David Taylor: After more than 20 years as a parent and governor in secondary schools, I strongly support setting and welcome what the Government have done since 1997, but will the Minister decouple streaming and setting? Streaming can have negative effects. It can reinforce social class divisions, it can lead to bias and inconsistency in the allocation of pupils to sets and it can reduce the teaching expectations of the less able. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he speaks from knowledge. The advantage of setting is that it enables a sophisticated targeted approach for different subjects, where it would be appropriate in some cases and less so in others. That is why, for example, there is variance across subjects, with more than 80 per cent. of maths lessons being set, but probably less than 10 per cent. in classes such as physical education. It is for head teachers, with the support and guidance of Government, to make the decisions that, in their professional judgment, are right for their schools. That is the approach that the Government take—not trying to run schools from Whitehall, as I suspect the Opposition propose.

Nick Gibb: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said, one of the elements of the White Paper that we support is the encouragement for schools to adopt setting, as we also did when that policy was first announced in the Government's White Paper in 1997. So why today are 60 per cent. of academic lessons in secondary schools still being taught in mixed-ability classes? Why, if the Government are serious about encouraging setting in secondary schools, did they remove from Ofsted inspection criteria the requirement to monitor and record whether lessons are setted?

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the various parliamentary answers I have given him recently, Ofsted changed the way in which it measures grouping by ability—[Hon. Members: "When?"] In 2003–04, precisely so that there could be a more sophisticated and clearer understanding of grouping by ability, rather than conflating, banding and setting. The key point, as I emphasised earlier, is that we have made clear our support for setting. We have put more guidance and practical support into schools to deliver setting. There is more setting in our secondary schools than there was when we came into government. The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing for the running of schools, the setting of timetables and the division of pupils from Whitehall rather than from the head teacher's office. That is the approach that he is proposing, but he is wrong. The approach that we are taking is much more likely to ensure that pupils can progress and that schools can make the decisions that are right for them.

Higher Education

Alison Seabeck: If she will make a statement on the funding of the higher education sector beyond 2007.

Bill Rammell: Government expenditure on higher education is increasing by about £2 billion between 2004–05 and 2007–08, to almost £9.5 billion. Higher education institutions are also benefiting from increases in research funding. Government funding beyond 2007–08 will be decided as part of the comprehensive spending review. Institutions will have an extra income from variable fees that is estimated to reach £1.35 billion in steady state by 2010.

Alison Seabeck: I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed response, but I must press him a little further. Will he allay the concerns raised with me by Plymouth university—a popular new university that is growing fast and attracting students—that post 2007–08 there could be a reduction in funding in direct relation to the increase that universities receive in fees, as happened in Australia and New Zealand? Were that to happen, it would be very damaging to universities such as Plymouth.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I certainly share her view about the good work that Plymouth university is doing. Vice-chancellors regularly raise the issue with me and I highlight to them, as I do to my hon. Friend, the fact that we are currently maintaining the unit of teaching resource, which is a reversal of the policy that we inherited from the Conservatives. No Government can make a commitment beyond the current spending review; however, in discussing that review we shall very much keep in mind the priority that universities give the issue.

Michael Gove: Given the benefits that universities have as a result of the tuition fee system introduced by the Government, can the Minister assure me that he will look favourably on proposals to allow universities to lift the current cap on their tuition fees, and on proposals by universities to retain more of those sums rather than having them centralised in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Bill Rammell: This is a matter of balance, but I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's question as I thought that the Opposition opposed variable fees. Clearly, things are moving swiftly. I remind the hon. Gentleman of our policy position, which has not changed since we took the Higher Education Bill through Parliament: by law it will not be possible to lift the cap before January 2010 at the earliest; no decision will be taken until the independent commission has reviewed the introduction of the first three years of the system; and after 2010 the cap can be lifted only if approval is given by both Houses of Parliament.

School Finance

Simon Hughes: If she will revise the funding formula for schools to take greater account of the mobility of school populations.

Jacqui Smith: In developing our proposals for the new dedicated schools grant, we considered with our partners whether there should be a mobility factor in the distribution of funding for local authorities and decided against it. Of course local authorities can already take account of pupil mobility in their local funding formulae. We will announce in the near future our final decisions on the distribution of the new dedicated schools grants for 2006–07 and 2007–08.

Simon Hughes: The Minister will know that, in boroughs such as mine, in most of inner London and in much of the rest of the country, people will be extremely unhappy with that answer. Given that some schools have a 60 per cent. turnover in classes in the same year and, in many, a third of the pupils change between the first and second sets of tests, will she look again at what the Prime Minister's strategy unit said only two years ago and at what the Association of London Government report said in June this year, both of which make it clear that a fair funding formula to reflect rapidly changing pupils in classrooms is necessary for equal educational opportunity?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman rightly makes the case that the challenge with respect to pupil mobility rests on the individual schools in which a large proportion of pupils are mobile. That is why it is absolutely right that local authority funding formulae can and should take account of differential funding for schools with high mobility. Given the wide spread of mobility across a range of local authorities, the effect of distributing between authorities on the basis of mobility would have been to flatten and reduce the extra contributions to those authorities with additional educational needs on the basis of deprivation, not to benefit authorities such as the hon. Gentleman's. That is why the decision was taken.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Witness Initiatives

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the Merseyside "No Witness, No Justice" initiative.

Mike O'Brien: Under "No Witness, No Justice", the pilot witness care unit opened in Sefton in March. It helps to increase witness attendance at court by about 20 per cent. As a result of that success, a new centralised witness care unit is being set up in Liverpool to cover a wider area, and I understand that it will open next Monday.

Ben Chapman: I very much welcome both the opening on Monday and the increased attendance of witnesses that the scheme has brought about. Given that the MORI survey that was commissioned to look at the issue also found an increase in both witnesses' and victims' confidence in the criminal justice system, how does my hon. and learned Friend assess the scheme's potential, when it is rolled out in Merseyside and elsewhere, to bring about more speedy and effective justice?

Mike O'Brien: The aim is to ensure that we encourage witnesses to attend court, give evidence and help to secure justice. The Liverpool centralised unit is intended to cover the Wirral and Merseyside, and it aims to provide a better service for witnesses and victims. Victims will have a single point of contact to ensure that they get information about how their cases are proceeding. The unit will keep them informed of progress, offer help with issues such as child care, transport to and from the court or referral to witness support if they need it. We will also seek to ensure that, when people attend court, the witness service meets them and looks after them while they are there. The aim is to get a better deal for witnesses and victims, and a better deal for the public because more offenders are brought to justice.

Sentencing Policy

Bob Russell: If he will make it a requirement for sentencing in all road traffic cases where a fatality has occurred to be made at the Crown court.

Mike O'Brien: Currently, offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while unfit because of alcohol or drugs are triable at the Crown court. Careless driving is dealt with at magistrates courts. The Government intend to create two new imprisonable offences of causing death by careless driving and causing death while driving while disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured. Magistrates will decide the appropriate venue for sentencing, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the driver's culpability.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging response, but does he not accept that, on some occasions when a guilty plea is made at a magistrates court for careless driving, the magistrates are not made aware of the fact that there has been a fatality? Does he not agree therefore that, on every occasion where there has been a fatality, the court needs to know and, preferably, the case should go to Crown court for sentence, even on a guilty plea?

Mike O'Brien: It is certainly my view that if a fatality has occurred following a traffic incident, magistrates should be informed. It is then for the court to decide the appropriate venue for sentencing. The court is, to a considerable extent, best placed to make that decision. The sentence depends on the culpability of the defendant, rather than the consequence. Obviously, the death of someone is a horrendous consequence, butculpability inevitably varies according to the circumstances of a case. Cases involving a momentary lapse of concentration are different from those involving consistent erratic driving. Magistrates will have to judge whether they are able to deal with a case, or whether it should be dealt with at the Crown court, but they should certainly be aware of the fact that a fatality has occurred.

David Kidney: I am pleased that the Home Office has decided to create the new offence of causing death by careless driving, which is being put into the Road Safety Bill [Lords]. The offence will carry a maximum sentence of five years, so it is likely that most cases will be dealt with in the Crown court, provided that the prosecution charges manslaughter—at the worst—death by dangerous driving, or the new offence. Will my hon. and learned Friend give me a commitment that he will issue guidance to prosecutors throughout the country to ensure that one of those offences is charged in every case of death for which there is some culpability?

Mike O'Brien: It will be for the CPS to assess the appropriate charge in individual circumstances under the code of practice and based on the evidence. Clearly, guidance will be provided. I cannot give entirely the undertaking that my hon. Friend wants. I want to examine the way in which the guidance should be drawn before I reach a decision. However, I will certainly write to him as soon as a decision on the nature of the guidance is taken.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General will be aware that historically in our country we have been reluctant to criminalise a consequence when the cause of that consequence is inadvertence or negligence. Certainly, draconian penalties have not been imposed. I was thus pleased to hear him say that there will be cases in which death by careless driving can be dealt with in the magistrates court. Does he agree that there will be cases in which although the consequence might have been tragic, the extent of culpability will be such that the matter should stay in the magistrates court? Moreover, can he tell the House anything further about how a distinction will be made between dangerous driving and careless driving, given that the maximum penalty of five years for careless driving that is contemplated is a very substantial sentence indeed and well in excess of the majority of sentences imposed for death by dangerous driving at present?

Mike O'Brien: We must carefully examine the way in which the courts will deal with the new offences in practice. That was why I was careful when I responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) about the guidance. Following the consultation that was completed in May, we took account of the views of hon. Members and people outside the House who thought that we needed to introduce the new offences in the Road Safety Bill. During the consultation, it was clear that the initial suggestion that the matter should be dealt with primarily in the Crown court was not viewed by the professionals as the right approach—they thought that it should go either way. There will thus be circumstances in which the magistrates court can appropriately deal with cases, so we must look at the detailed guidance for prosecutors on how they address magistrates on the matter.

Crown Prosecution Service

Sally Keeble: What steps he is taking to speed up decision making by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mike O'Brien: Every effort is made by the Crown Prosecution Service to make decisions within a reasonable period. However, owing to the complexity of some cases, some decisions obviously take longer. The CPS must balance swift decisions with the need to get the decision right, based on a careful analysis of the evidence by experienced lawyers who operate under the code for Crown prosecutors.

Sally Keeble: My hon. and learned Friend is aware of the particular case about which I have been concerned. I appreciate his efforts and those of his colleagues on that. However, may I press him again and ask him to ensure that the CPS understands that there is not just a question of distress to the family, which obviously wants matters dealt with properly? There are much wider policy implications attached to some cases, and they cannot be progressed as long as the CPS does not take decisions. Will he ensure that such wider issues are also understood?

Mike O'Brien: I know well the case that my hon. Friend raises and have spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions about it on a number of occasions. I know that she has also spoken to the DPP.
	Cases sometimes take a long time to reach a decision because of the need to collect evidence. My hon. Friend has raised concerns about the way in which that restricts the ability to discuss wider issues about how institutions of the penal system, in particular, operate. As there has been a delay in making a decision on the case, she has been unable to raise those concerns. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee will consider the matter. I hope that the issues that concern my hon. Friend can be brought to its attention and that it considers the restrictions on her raising them in the House.

Simon Hughes: Are Law Officers willing to consider whether Crown prosecutors in different areas can be publicly accountable for the speed of decision making, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), or for the success of their prosecutions, so that there is public engagement with the people who make decisions on our behalf?

Mike O'Brien: Crown prosecutors can engage with local MPs, and the hon. Gentleman can talk to the chief Crown prosecutor in his area if he wants to. Indeed, many hon. Members do that. The Law Officers supervise the Crown Prosecution Service and are answerable in this place for what happens. From time to time, the DPP has been brought before Select Committees, and other Crown prosecutors can appear before Select Committees on request.
	There are a number of ways in which the CPS can engage publicly. To some extent, it depends on parliamentarians making the request. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular request, we would be happy to discuss it with him.

Business of the House

Chris Grayling: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 28 November—Second Reading of the Childcare Bill.
	Tuesday 29 November—Second Reading of the Health Bill.
	Wednesday 30 November—Remaining stages of the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Thursday 1 December—There is a change from the business that I previously announced. We will now take the remaining stages of the Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill.
	Friday 2 December—Private Members Bill.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 5 December—Second Reading of the Work and Families Bill.
	Tuesday 6 December—Remaining stages of the London Olympics Bill.
	Wednesday 7 December—A debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 8 December—Estimates [1st Allotted Day], subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.
	At 6 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 9 December—The House will not be sitting.

Chris Grayling: I have told the Leader of the House how annoyed hon. Members are about the decision to postpone next week's debate on police reform. Will he give an absolute assurance that he will hold the debate before Christmas?
	Has the Leader of the House seen media reports that  when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence,Lord Drayson, was chief executive of PowderJect Pharmaceuticals, he was responsible for selling substandard vaccines to the national health service, and that concerns about the company's practices were raised with the Government by regulators here, in Ireland and in the United States? Does he accept that there needs to be an immediate statement to the House about the allegations and that Health Ministers need to tell Members what they are planning to do to investigate the matter?
	Furthermore, will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House to make a statement on whether any of the vaccines provided by Lord Drayson's company to our armed forces were also substandard? Does he agree that if that proves to have been the case, Lord Drayson's position as a Minister would be in serious doubt?
	I know that the Leader of the House is aware that since I raised the subject of energy supply with him at Prime Minister's questions three weeks ago, the wholesale price of gas has rocketed. Indeed, it was discussed at Prime Minister's questions yesterday. We will either have gas shortages this winter or consumers and businesses will pay much more for their energy. Why does the Leader of the House continue to refuse to hold a long-promised debate in Government time on energy, and when can we expect to hear more about the way in which the Government plan to respond to the growing crisis?
	Despite all their promises, the Government plan to negotiate away the British rebate in Brussels in the next few weeks. In a recent visit to Brussels, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	"We have put our abatement on the table. It is not the best way to spend European money."
	Can we have an urgent statement from the Prime Minister about the rebate, and will the Leader of the House admit that the promises made by the Prime Minister to the House in the summer were worthless?
	Finally, last week, the Leader of the House was dismissive of the absurd rules and regulations in barmy Britain. Let me try again, and ask for a statement from Health Ministers. The guild of friends in my local cottage hospital has agreed to spend a few hours each week tending the flowers in the wards, but they have been told that before they can even top up water in the vases they must provide evidence of their identity and address to the Criminal Records Bureau. Does the Leader of the House not think that that is truly barmy?

Geoff Hoon: I am always grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for the entertainment that he provides, no doubt after scouring the pages of many local newspapers to produce the information that he sets before the House. As for the specific points that he made, I make it clear that the Government regard the debate about police reform as a matter of great importance. We could hold the debate in Westminster Hall before Christmas if the Opposition insist on it. [Hon. Members: "No."] There may not be time to hold the debate on the Floor of the House before Christmas, but I assure them that if it needs to be held here we can arrange that early in the new year.
	I have seen the reports about my noble Friend Lord Drayson. As for the question of substandard vaccines in general, I am confident that the vaccine supplies both to this country and to Her Majesty's armed forces are of the required standard. As for the energy supply, I am sorry to spoil the scaremongering tactics deployed by the shadow Leader of the House, but I should like to acquaint him with some important facts about the energy supply. Gas prices are rising throughout Europe, because they are linked to oil prices—that is a fact. The great majority of our businesses are not affected by the changes in gas prices, because they have contracted to buy their gas at fixed prices—again that is a fact. Gas prices here, despite the rise in the past year, are still some of the most competitive in Europe, and the same is true of our household bills—again, that is a fact. The national grid, which knows rather more about these matters than some Opposition Members, has made it clear in its winter outlook statement that there will not be a problem for domestic gas customers and smaller businesses and organisations, however severe the winter, barring freak technical disruptions. That, too, is a fact. It is important that Opposition Members consider the facts instead of entertaining us with their scaremongering tactics. They should bear it in mind that, as Age Concern has pointed out, it is the elderly and the most vulnerable in our society who are most concerned about the kind of material that the shadow Leader of the House and others are issuing in a deliberate effort to upset people. That is simply intolerable and should not happen.
	As for the British rebate, Opposition Members have become obsessive about it over the years, but the Government's position has not changed. The rebate, as I made clear last week, was a direct consequence of the fact that the United Kingdom was paying a disproportionately large amount to the EU budget as the result of the common agricultural policy. The Government have made it clear that if the CAP is reformed to bring about lower payments by the UK the need for the rebate disappears. That is perfectly logical and proper, and it has been the Government's position throughout. As for the hon. Gentleman's final point, it is obviously important that individuals who are prepared to volunteer to help people in our hospitals should do so with the minimum possible inconvenience.

Barry Sheerman: May we have an urgent debate on corporate governance, particularly the corporate structure of the Tchenguiz family? We know them well in the north of England because they run a company called the Estates and Management group, which gives a tough time to elderly and vulnerable leaseholders in many of the northern towns, using all sorts of strategies to extract money. They have a corporate structure that the House of Commons Library describes not just as a chain of companies, but as a spaghetti of companies registered in the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas and elsewhere. May we have a debate on the company, which is involved in a major takeover of a restaurant and pub chain? Let us find out exactly who owns it, where it is owned and how it conducts its business.

Geoff Hoon: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but there are opportunities that he might seek to exploit by way of an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall. If I may say so, he has probably made his point just as effectively today.

David Heath: In the light of tragic events overnight, may I yet again ask the Leader of the House when we will have a debate on the political situation in Iraq, which, extraordinarily, we have not had in the lifetime of this Parliament? Perhaps we might also have a debate on the role of the Attorney-General and his attempt to gag newspapers with the threat of the Official Secrets Act not on the grounds of national security, but on the grounds of potential embarrassment to the Prime Minister or to any presidents with whom he happens to have conversations.
	I echo the widespread irritation and annoyance at the cancellation of the debate next Thursday on police restructuring. The Leader of the House must realise that already the options have been reduced without Members having any opportunity to express an opinion. In my part of the country, the south-west, we face the prospect of a police force whose area runs from the Isles of Scilly to Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire. Tewkesbury is nearer to Scotland than to the tip of Cornwall. Many hon. Members want to raise important questions. Westminster Hall is not an adequate substitute. We need a debate in the Chamber.
	Lastly, has the right hon. Gentleman come across the "Fantasy Health Minister" website? I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence is a frequent player. Is the Leader of the House aware that one can accumulate a large number of bonus points for allowing colleagues a free vote on the issue of smoking?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Defence have regularly come before the House to set out the position in Iraq. Foreign Office questions takes place next Wednesday, I believe. There are regular opportunities for hon. Members to raise the matter of the political situation in Iraq, and I have never been in any doubt that they seek every opportunity to do so, and very successfully.
	I am slightly surprised, but perhaps I should not be, to hear yet again Liberal Democrats not even prepared to see effective enforcement of important legislation that safeguards our security and liberties. If the hon. Gentleman is really telling the House that there are no circumstances in which the Attorney-General should exercise long-standing powers under the Official Secrets Act, he needs to say so a little more plainly, rather than resorting to the kind of sub-editor's headlines that he tends to speak in. The Attorney-General has a legal responsibility, which I suspect was given to him by a Liberal Government. It needs to be exercised from time to time. That is done with great restraint and only in certain limited circumstances, but it is an important power that must be exercised from time to time.
	I have said all that I intend to say about the debate on policing. It is an important matter. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's final point already.

Ian Austin: May we have a debate on the irresponsible and antisocial use of fireworks this year? Everybody enjoys bonfire night, but I do not see why my constituents should have their lives made a misery in the days and weeks running up to and after bonfire night each year. Such a debate would enable us to examine the extent to which police and local authorities have been using the new powers that were given to them last year, and it would give us the chance to discuss whether tougher restrictions would enable my constituents to live free from the noise, nuisance, disturbance and danger that fireworks can cause.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue, which inevitably comes up each year. May I assure him, having examined the figures on the number of complaints this year, that there has been a significant reduction, not least because of the very effective measures the Government have implemented to limit concerns in the community, particularly among the elderly and the vulnerable? If there is a requirement for additional change and reform further to reduce the threat to people, we will re-examine the matter.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an Education Minister to make a statement about the decreasing number of students coming forward to study physics and chemistry, which is causing grave problems for important manufacturing industries such as pharmaceuticals? AstraZeneca, the largest employer in my constituency, has spoken to me at length about the matter. The problem is that too few teachers are prepared to teach those subjects in secondary schools, which therefore reduces the number of students who go on to study them at university. Chemistry and physics are vital to the future of this country.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that he had an opportunity to raise that question in the past hour with Education Ministers at Education Question Time.

Nicholas Winterton: I tried.

Geoff Hoon: I am always delighted to serve as a substitute for those hon. Members who fail to get called at Question Time. I am delighted to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the importance that the Government attach to training teachers in physics and chemistry, not least as someone whose physics teacher advised him never to darken his door again—advice that I was glad to follow. The issue is important for industry, and we must continue to train the right number of physicists and chemists for the future of our high-technology industries.

Marsha Singh: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the south Asian earthquake disaster, which The Independent described today as "the forgotten disaster"? I am proud and pleased about the response of the Department for International Development and the British Government, but 100,000 people could die during the winter. Tents and shelters are still needed, and 2.3 million people will need food. In my constituency, concern is growing, especially among my constituents with Kashmiri or Pakistani backgrounds, that too little is being done too late. Will my right hon. Friend find time for that debate?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. The international community clearly needs to emulate the example set by the British Government, which my hon. Friend has generously acknowledged, in ensuring that there is not a further disaster this winter in remote and inclement parts of Pakistan. He is right to raise the issue, which the British Government are, I assure him, keeping at the forefront of their mind.

Peter Robinson: After yesterday, does the Leader of the House believe that he can persuade the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to return to the Dispatch Box, this time to explain the major changes he intends to make to public administration in Northern Ireland, including local authorities? The Secretary of State was smuggled into a Belfast hotel earlier this week, and he has not made a statement to this House, which would have allowed hon. Members an opportunity to ask questions. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State comes to this House to explain himself?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was here yesterday both answering questions and initiating debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a skilful and successful parliamentarian, and I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity when my right hon. Friend was smuggled into the House to put those questions and participate in that debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have further opportunities on future occasions.

Celia Barlow: Will the Leader of the House make time for the Home Secretary to make a statement on the case of my constituent, Amir Nazabzadeh, who was arrested at his home on 15 November, pending deportation? I strongly feel that my office was misled by Home Office officials, who told us that Amir was served with a removal order on 10 November, although the removal order was dated 15 November, that no removal directions had been set, although he was scheduled for removal on the next morning, and that he had been moved from Heathrow, although he was still there. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Amir will not be removed until my representations of 6 October have been fully considered and until the friends of Amir have had time to take guidance on a judicial review?

Geoff Hoon: I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of my hon. Friend's concerns on this matter.

Christopher Fraser: Will the Leader of the House consider an urgent debate on the crisis in adult learning? The Federation of Women's Institutes, in my constituency, is deeply unhappy with the Government's funding policies, particularly as they affect adult education, and that a sacrifice will be made in non-vocational subjects, especially in rural areas.

Geoff Hoon: I am well aware of the concern that has arisen throughout the country. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will accept the principle that is being operated, which is that the resources that are available should primarily be devoted to ensuring that people have the opportunity of gaining employment, which means that we will concentrate more of the available money on training and on vocational opportunities. That is not to say that adult learning is not an important part of the wider learning programme that the Government intend to continue. We must obtain the right balance between the contribution from those who are participating in what are often leisure activities rather than simply pure learning and the contribution that the Government make. I am not in any way dismissing these proper concerns and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Si�n Simon: My constituents, whom I will not name but whose case is well known, who are victims of Professor Roy Meadow and have never been charged with anything, are faced with their third child having been kidnapped by Birmingham city council social services department and being adopted against their will. As a result of the secrecy of the family court there is nothing that I can do about it, as their representative. There is nobody that I can talk to about the matter. May we have a debate about family courts in general, the kidnapping of my constituent's child and children in particular?

Geoff Hoon: I will not comment on a specific legal case, but I accept the more general point in relation to the operation of family courts. I know that it is something about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is concerned. The question of secrecy and the way in which the courts operate is an issue. I emphasise that these are particularly sensitive and difficult issues affecting children, their relationship with their parents and the role of local authorities. It is important to look at different ways in which these courts might operate, but we must have paramount regard to the interests of the children in question.

George Young: May we have an early debate in Government time on the Prime Minister's refusal to allow Lord Birt to appear before a Select Committee of this House? Is it not an unacceptable restriction on our ability to hold the Executive to account for the Prime Minister to have a personal veto on our witnesses?

Geoff Hoon: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman raises the issue in that way. He is usually rather more fair-minded about the approach that he takes to these issues. He will know that it is a long-standing aspect of the Osmotherley rules governing who may appear before Select Committees that it is a matter for the Minister in questionI am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was in this position at some stage in the pastto decide whether any particular civil servant will or will not represent him before a Select Committee. That has been part of the rules since they were first drafted, and that remains precisely the position.

Jim Sheridan: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made on the Government's thinking on corporate responsibility? I ask that question against the background that when politicians act irresponsibly and endanger people's lives they receive lengthy prison sentences, but when company directors do likewise they often escape prosecution, and when they are prosecuted they receive paltry fines. Surely that is unfair.

Geoff Hoon: Certainly a great deal of attention has been given to this aspect of the law in recent years. It is important that we ensure that those who are responsible for the commission of criminal offences are brought before the courts and prosecuted, and that remains the Government's position.

Edward Garnier: May I ask the Leader of the House to take the removal of the debate on police restructuring a little more seriously? I ask him to do that both as an east midlands Member like him and as the shadow spokesman on the police. The police restructuring debate was on the future business section of the Order Paper. It has been removed, and no reason for its removal has been given, either by the Home Office or by the Leader of the House this afternoon. The Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) in Westminster Hall is not a substitute. This is a matter of huge public concern. It concerns the most major restructuring of the police for about a third of a century. Simply to dismiss the matter as something that might be dealt with in Westminster Hall or at some time in the new year is not good enough. Will the Leader of the House, who is a decent person, ensure that the Government do their duty to the House and bring a substantive motion before the House before Christmas?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He was clearly getting into a contentious area in the later part of his remarks. I appreciate the vote of confidence, if that is what it was. I was not in any way failing to recognise the seriousness of this issue for right hon. and hon. Members throughout the country. The issue affects all Members of the House. I was not suggesting that a debate in Westminster Hall was a substitute. I was suggesting that if Opposition Members believe that it is important to have such a debate before Christmas, that is an opportunity. If, however, the wish is to have the debate on the Floor of the House, I assure the House that opportunity will be given early in the new year.

Diana Johnson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of early-day motion 801, which calls for the vote at 16 and has the support of 91 Members across the parties in the House.
	[That this House believes that the time is right to lower the voting age to 16; recognises that at 16 and 17 young people's lives are as rich and varied as at any other age, that they have considerable responsibilities that routinely involve making complex decisions and that are unrecognised in their current democratic rights, that many youth-led organisations have been campaigning for the voting age to be reduced, and that lowering the voting age could play a huge role in helping young people feel more connected with political processes which would strengthen local and national democracy and is the next logical extension for citizenship education; and calls on the Government to use the Electoral Administration Bill to legislate to lower the voting age to 16 for all public elections in the UK.]
	As a constitutional moderniser, does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that we have citizenship classes up to the age of 16 in all our schools, it is a great pity that young people will have to wait until they are 18 to exercise the right to vote?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and it is something that the Government continue to consider. Making such a major change is not something that can be done lightly. It requires a great deal of thought and consideration. I assure my hon. Friend that this is a matter that the Government are keeping under close review.

David Howarth: May I return to the question of next Thursday's business and offer the Leader of the House a suggestion? Consideration in Committee of the Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill took barely more than an hour and a half, and I doubt whether the remaining stages will detain the House for very much longer than that. Could we schedule the debate on the Bill so that it takes place for a shorter time, and then return to the original debate, which is of great importance to Members on both sides of the House, for the rest of that day?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting constitutional question about the willingness of Opposition parties to participate in the scheduling of Bills. Their enthusiasm for ensuring that consideration of Bills continues for a limited period on the Floor of the House is something that I will note, and may rely on in future.

Chris Mullin: May I press my right hon. Friend on the suggestion that a free vote be held on the extent of the restrictions on smoking when the issue is debated next year? He will recall that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at annual conference, said that whenever he introduced a reform he always thought in retrospect that he had not gone far enough. We are in danger of introducing a measure that makes no one happy. I put it to him that the way round that is to allow a free vote on the extent to which the restrictions should apply.

Geoff Hoon: I have dealt with this question on a number of previous occasions, and I am sure that I have tested the limits of your patience, Mr. Speaker, because this is not strictly a matter for the Leader of the House or for the Chamber. I suggest that my right hon. Friend raise the matter at the regular meetings of the parliamentary Labour party. That seems to me to be where decisions on whether a free vote should be allowed should properly be discussed.

Roger Gale: I should place on the record my interest as a warrant-holding special constable. The Leader of the House is fully aware that chief officers have been given a desperately short period in which to respond to the proposals contained in Closing the Gap. That consultation closes, and therefore effectively the debate closes, on 23 December. It is therefore ludicrous to suggest that the debate in the House should be held in the new year. Is he aware that it is an insult to the Chamber and to the police to suggest that an hour and a half in Westminster Hall is sufficient? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that hour and a half debate could not possibly be followed by a vote. There are many Members who require a vote on this subject. The Government have recently paid particular attention to the views of the police. If the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister receive representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers indicating that it is concerned about this, will he guarantee a debate before Christmas?

Geoff Hoon: The first stage of the consultation is scheduled to be concluded by 23 December, but that will happen only where police forces agree to amalgamation. If there is no such agreement, there is a further opportunity for consultation lasting another four months. There is every opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to set out their concerns, and it is important that the matter be widely discussed. I do not intend to repeat what I have already said about the need to give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to set out their views in this Chamber, but should any structural changes be required there will obviously be opportunities for Members to vote on them once any necessary legislation is brought before the House.

Fraser Kemp: Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the education Bill comes before the House there is ample opportunity to discuss its anti-bullying aspects so that we can share the experience of Sunderland city council and of local schools? They have a very innovative and pioneering scheme involving the use of mentors, including 14-year-old Demi Stanners from my constituency, where all the evidence and experience shows that people will respond more to people of the same age in dealing with the evil that is bullying in many of our schools.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. All of us who are concerned about discipline in schools are worried about bullying, which is part of the problem that, sadly, too many of our children and young people face when they go to school. That is why the Government's most recent White Paper on education includes a chapter that specifically mentions bullying.

Shailesh Vara: We have learned today that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made a number of mistakes at the time of the Asian tsunami. Can we have a statement here from either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for International Development explaining what the mistakes were and why they occurred, and, most importantly, giving an assurance that they will never be repeated?

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I believe that he is being somewhat harsh on the Foreign Office and the work that it did in response to the tsunami. The National Audit Office report is critical of certain aspects, but overall it makes it clear that there was a significant and very effective response on behalf of the United Kingdom. What is important about such reports is that we learn lessons from them, and I assure him that we will do so.

Paul Flynn: Is the Leader of the House aware that opinion in Wales is more united against police reorganisation than it has been on any issue since Liverpool decided to drown Tryweryn in 1965? People are saying, quite sensibly, that we do not want to have three years of disruption and upheaval from a reorganisation that will distract the forces from their task of keeping the peace.
	Does the Leader of the House realise that the Government have given no figures on the cost of this, although the North Wales police have said that it will cost 50 million, which will be an additional burden on the council tax payers of Wales? Following the postponement of next week's debate, can we take some comfort from the Government's waking up to the fact that the demise of those fine police forces would be as futile as most people believe?

Geoff Hoon: I am slightly surprised to hear my normally radical friend taking such a conservativewith a small cline on such an important matter as police reorganisation. As the Government have made clear, it is necessary to organise our police forces in the best way to allow them to do the job. My hon. Friend refers to the up-front costs, but I can assure him that the projected savings from police reorganisation are significant. Those savings will allow more effective policing in Wales and, indeed, in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Leader of the House reorganise the business programme so that we can discuss the amalgamation of the police forces next week? He must understand that there is a deep anxiety in the House about that. In my constituency, there is very robust opposition to the suggestion that the Lincolnshire police force should be grouped with adjoining forces, because it is felt that that will lead to prejudice against rural areas. The House needs to discuss this matter on the Floor of the House, with a vote, immediately.

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point with his customary style, and I have noted his remarks.

David Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Highways Agency is blocking much needed development of business and housing in my constituency on the basis that that would add to congestion on the A1 western bypass around Gateshead and Newcastle? Can we have an early debate on the powers of the Highways Agency, which has failed over many years to take any action whatsoever to relieve congestion on that trunk road and is now using its powers to block much-needed development and redevelopment in my constituency?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising what is obviously an important issue for him as a constituency Member of Parliament. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is made aware of his concerns and responds accordingly.

Eric Forth: If the Leader of the House is going to persist in tying the EU rebate to the common agricultural policy, will he instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House urgently and tell us in terms that any surrender of the rebate will be based only on an absolute and actual reform of the CAP, not a promise, an undertaking or a wish; otherwise, nobody will believe a word that either he or the Prime Minister says?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his confidence in my abilities to instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House. I am sure that the Prime Minister would respond to a warm, friendly invitation to set out the Government's position, and he will do that, as he regularly does, after the forthcoming summit.

Ashok Kumar: In the light of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said about support for the chemical industry, may I tell my right hon. Friend that there is a great deal of concern about the gas price increases that were announced at the weekend? Two companies in my area, Terra Nitrogen and Huntsman, are worried about reduced capacity and shutdowns. It is a very important issue for the chemical industry and for manufacturing. Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the future of the chemical industry? I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would benefit from that.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issue of the chemical industry, which is a vital employer and a supplier of significant technology in the United Kingdom. By and large, chemical companies that are large consumers of gas tend to have financial arrangements with the energy suppliers, particularly in relation to gas, based on the spot price on any given day. Indeed, that price fluctuatesit fell overnight. I assume that large chemical corporations arrange their supplies of energy on the basis of what is most cost-effective. Some companies have long-term contracts at fixed prices for the supply of gas. I assume that chemical companies choose not to do that as a financial judgment that they make as being in their own best interests.

Mark Harper: When I recently asked the Leader of the House about the debate on police restructuring, he said that he was
	confident that there will be every opportunity to discuss any decisions before they are implemented.[Official Report, 10 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 490.]
	That perhaps reveals his thinking. I should draw his attention to the fact that we like to discuss such decisions in this House before they are taken, not implemented. As he should be aware, most of the proposed changes do not require primary legislation to be brought before the House, so there will be no opportunity to debate such legislation in detail on Second Reading. I, too, urge him to reinstate the debate for next Thursday.

Geoff Hoon: I have nothing to add to what I have said on several occasions about the need for a debate. The hon. Gentleman quotes me accurately and I agree with what I said.

Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on the beers offered for sale in Strangers Bar? Will he lend his authority as Leader of the House to my concerns about the replacement of Youngs ordinary bitterone of the most famous cask-conditioned ales in this country, which has been on sale in Strangers for more than 10 years and is brewed in Britain's oldest brewery, based in my constituencywith San Miguel, a lager from the Philippines, which is not only greatly inferior but far more alcoholic? In the name of good taste and parliamentary sobriety, will he help us to get Youngs back?

Geoff Hoon: I never cease to be amazed by the range of my responsibilities. I am delighted to discover that I might have responsibility for that matter. I am sure that it will be investigated now that my hon. Friend has raised it so eloquently.

Mark Prisk: In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House told us that there would be no debate next Thursday on police restructuring, but he did not tell us why. If he does not answer that question clearly, there is a danger that it will give my constituents and many others the impression that the Government are either frightened of debate or have no intention of listening to the House.

Geoff Hoon: Given that I announced that there would be a debate, it is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government are alarmed, concerned or frightened of holding one. Indeed, I made it clear today that there will be such a debate. The reason for adjusting the business is clear: it is necessary to complete the remaining stages of an important Bill, which must be taken on the Floor of the House.

Julie Morgan: I add my support to a free vote on the smoking restrictions. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to help settle the dispute with the House of Commons contract cleaners, perhaps by asking the House of Commons Commission to get involved? Yesterday I went to a meeting with other hon. Members in which the cleaners were supported by a delegation of cleaners from Europe, who have much better pay and conditions than the people working in this building. The dispute has been going on for six months, and I urge him to do what he can because it is humiliating that it is happening in the heart of democracy. Will he do all that he can to get it settled before Christmas?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter and it is important to try to move towards a settlement. However, I emphasise that the House of Commons authorities are not party to the contract. It is important that negotiations continue between the employer and the employees. I recently met the deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Trades Union Congress, when the issue was raised. I made it clear that I am willing to meet other representatives of the cleaners to try to resolve the matter fairly and properly.

Pete Wishart: May we have a debate about the availability of digital television, especially as we move towards analogue turn-off? Large parts of my constituency receive no digital services but my constituents will still be expected to pay the inflation-busting licence fee hike that the BBC proposes. Does the Leader of the House agree that there is a case for a differential in the licence fee when full services are not available?

Geoff Hoon: As I understood it, the reason for changing the licence fee was precisely to allow digital services to be extended throughout the country. That is part of the Government's undertaking to promote digital services and provide an enhanced service to people throughout the United Kingdom.

David Taylor: Does the Leader of the House agree that crime is a local problem that should, as far as possible, be tackled locally and that communities lie at the heart of the criminal justice system? If so, will he ask the Home Secretary to come to the House to explain his proposals for the probation service, which deals with 300,000 offenders annually? The Home Secretary is proposing to take control of it before parcelling it out and selling it off to the private and voluntary sectors, with which the probation service has worked successfully for a long time. Next year will be the 100th year of its existence. Should not we allow it to celebrate its successes rather than wave farewell to it?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right that it is important that all agencies that deal with crime locally be adequately staffed and have the appropriate resources to make a difference as close to the problem as possible. However, I hope that he agrees that, to make the resources available, it is only sensible to examine the management and organisational structures of the different agencies to ensure that they generate maximum efficiencies and do not, for example, simply duplicate services in small areas that could be tackled better regionally. We need to balance the importance of effective local services with the best management structures.

David Gauke: May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the cancellation of the debate on police amalgamation, which was scheduled for next Thursday? There is clearly widespread, cross-party concern about it. Losing that important debate is symptomatic of the Government's approach to police amalgamation. When the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety commissioned the O'Connor report, which will result in the changes, she asked for publicity on the matter to be kept low key. Are not the Government trying to rush through the proposals with little or no debate either here or elsewhere?

Geoff Hoon: No.

Desmond Swayne: May we have a statement from a Health Minister on the spread of MRSA? On Monday, when we discussed part 2 of the Equality Bill on religious equality, Labour Members said that the proper withdrawal of Bibles from hospitals was nothing to do with political correctness but that they were agents of the spread of MRSA. I have a Reuters report, which states that Gideons International was so shocked by the implication that the Bibles might be harbouring disease that it commissioned a study by a micro-biologist and a surgeon who said that it was nonsense. The Government and Gideons International cannot both be right, so what is the answer?

Geoff Hoon: The Government have invested an extra 68 million in tackling MRSA and it is showing results. There has been a significant reduction of around 6.4 per cent. in cases of MRSA in the past year and it is at its lowest level since 2001.

Tony Baldry: The Leader of the House was careful in the way in which he quoted from the national grid winter outlook. He made no comments about its prospects for major manufacturing industry. When the all-party aluminium group met leaders of the aluminium industry on Monday, they were extremely worried about prospects for the winter. Their next meeting after the all-party group was with officials at the Department of Trade and Industry who had invited them there and wanted to know from manufacturing industry the impact on it of interruptions in supply this winter. Why on earth should DTI officials want to know from manufacturing industry what would happen if there were interruptions to supply if the Department were not worried that there might be power cuts? Please may we have a debate on energy policy in Government time soon, because manufacturing matters to Conservative Members?

Geoff Hoon: And to Labour Members. Perhaps in contrast to the long period of Conservative Government, when many people lost their jobs, we do something about manufacturing industry rather than simply talking about it. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about security of energy supplies. Speaking in a slightly different capacity, I made it clear to the House that planning, preparing and ensuring that we had contingency plans in place in the event of a severe winter was part of Government policy. That is the reason for the sort of meetings to which he referred.

Nigel Dodds: The Turner commission on pensions is due to publish its report soon. May we have an assurance that there will be not only a statement when that happens but an early debate in the House on an important matter to the pensioners of today and tomorrow? It appears from reports today that the Chancellor is already ruling out any link between pension rises and earnings. When in opposition, the Labour party supported restoring the link, which is vital for the future prosperity of Britain's pensioners.

Geoff Hoon: I am confident that if there are specific proposals for changes, there will be every opportunity to debate and discuss them in the House. Equally, we anticipate in due course an important report by the Turner commission considering pensions in the longer term, which is vital for all those whom we represent. Let me make it clear that there will be opportunities to discuss that in future.

Andrew MacKay: To return to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), as today's published report vindicates those many British nationals who were stranded in Thailand at the time of the tsunami who believe that they were badly let down by the Foreign Officeparticularly in Thailand, where the service offered was totally inadequatecan we ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a full statement? As the Leader of the House said in answer to earlier questions, we must learn lessons, but in doing so, we must also be able to cross-examine the Foreign Secretary to satisfy ourselves that the lessons have really been learnt.

Geoff Hoon: I have said that the report is important, and that we must learn lessons from what was an overwhelming tragedy not only for the countries affected but for many citizens of this country who were caught up in those terrible events. There is an opportunity next Tuesday, at Foreign Office questions, to begin the process to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and it is important that we go on learning lessons and subjecting Ministers to proper political accountability.

Patrick McLoughlin: Is the Leader of the House aware that the fourth Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in a year announced on the Today programme this morning that there would be a statement next week on the Turner report? Why is the Leader of the House not able to tell us, when he announces the business, what statements are planned? Is it because, from week to week, the Government are in such chaos that they cannot tell us what the programme will be?

Geoff Hoon: In the dim and distant past, as a very young member of the Opposition Whips Office, I used to admire the skill and ability of the Conservative Whips Office in its management of parliamentary business. I recall asking a similar question from the Opposition Benches on one occasion, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer as I receivedthat that is a matter for the Government.

Greg Clark: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the scope of the NHS, at a time when GPs are being encouraged by Ministers to turn people away who are not critically ill or elderly? The flu jab costs 25. The average wage is now 12 an hour. Therefore, if the jab prevents the flu, the cost is saved in two hours. Is the universal NHS that we have had now restricted to those with life-threatening conditions?

Geoff Hoon: On the contrary, the Government have made tremendous progress in extending the availability of flu jabs each year. This year, something like 14.6 million doses will be available. In 1997, under the previous Conservative Government, a mere 6.1 million jabs were available. A huge improvement and increase in protection has been made available to the British people under this Government compared with the Conservative one.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on freedom of speech and, as we approach the Christmas season, on freedom of religion? Is it not the case that the Government have passed successive legislation that is creepingly anti-Christian?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that at all. The Government have recently proposed a change in legislation to protect religion more extensively than in the past. Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue, I am slightly surprised that he did not support that legislation.

Nadine Dorries: Bedford hospital, which cares for my constituents, has just closed two wards. It is 8.5 million in deficit, and as part of its recovery plan, has announced a list of further closures. It will restrict neo-natal services for premature babies, stop 10 theatre sessions a week, close a ward at weekends, close the Mulberry unitthe list goes on and on. Those cuts in services are affecting patients on the front line. Will the Minister make time for a debate so that we can all discuss in more detail the NHS deficits that affect all our constituencies, and the effect on the most vulnerable people who need the services?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Lady knows full well that a significant increase in resources has been made available to the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority. If she is not aware of the figures, let me tell her that there are 2,975 more nurses, 659 more doctors and 168 more consultants. That is a huge change in the numbers of people available to serve her constituents. Clearly, they require paying for, but in paying for those extra resources available to her constituents, it is important that the management of those resources is as effective as possible.

Crispin Blunt: May I re-emphasise to the Leader of the House how bad it looks that we will not have a debate on police restructuring? Given that both Surrey's police authority and chief constable have expressed considerable reservations about the short time scale, have gone through one proposal and are now being invited to consider five different strategic proposals to go back to the Home Office by 23 December, and that the Surrey police authority will manage to have a public meeting on 19 December before their latest submissions go to the Home Office, surely to goodness we can debate the matter on the Floor of the House before Christmas?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that this Government have put enormous extra resources into policingsomething like an extra 14,000 police officers across the country. It is important that we have the right structures to support those police officers who are doing a tremendous job. That is why we need to debate and discuss these issues, and why I have repeatedly made it clear that the House will have the opportunity to have the debate that he requests.

Points of Order

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to follow up the point of order that I raised on Tuesday. As you will recall, I raised the question of the Ministry of Defence holding a press briefing in advance of the publication tomorrow of the National Audit Office's major projects report. You kindly responded that you would look into the matter, and you have written to me, with a copy to the Secretary of State and a copy placed in the Library, saying that you do not find it desirable that a Department should arrange a briefing so close to the publication of the NAO report. I thank you, on behalf of all Members of the House, for your vigilance on our behalf and the protection that you seek to give to us.
	Nevertheless, may I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the briefing given by the noble Lord Drayson as Minister with responsibility for defence procurement was headed, Major Projects Report 2005? When I raised the matter with you on Tuesday, I was concerned that the debate about such an important report, as the Leader of the House knows, in the annual cycle of Ministry of Defence activities might be tainted or pre-empted by the Ministry of Defence, which had sought to present a favourable gloss on it. I understand that I could have had access to that report earlier this week, as you have pointed out to me in the letter placed in the Library. The fact is, however, that Members generally are not able to use those reports until they are available from the Vote Office.
	The headline written up by journalists in yesterday's newspapers was that the Ministry of Defence had cut the overspend by 699 millionthe precise figure contained in the report to be published tomorrow. I submit that the Ministry of Defence did not say in its briefing to journalists that the NAO's conclusion was that
	The decrease in forecast costs results mainly from changed requirements or reductions in the quantity or capability of equipment being procured.
	In other words, the savings have not come from Ministry of Defence efficiency savings but from cutting the capability or numbers of major projects to which the report refers.
	It therefore seems that the noble Lord has been somewhat cavalier with the House in presenting a partial view of what the National Audit Office was due to release tomorrow. I have written a note to you, Mr.   Speaker, and I would be grateful if you could consider the matter again on behalf of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have already made clear my views on the general issue, both in my initial response to his first point of order and in the letter that I sent to him and copied to the Ministry of Defence, but I do not wish to be drawn into the detailed points that he has now put to the House. He should pursue them with the Secretary of State for Defence.

Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 27 October Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary rated West Mercia police the most efficient in the country, yet by 23 December West Mercia will be rammed into a new regional police force. What

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there, because that was a not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman raised it because he was disappointed that I had not called him during business questions. I shall bear him in mind during business questions next week: he will be at the front of the queue.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assume that, as is customary, there will be an Adjournment debate before the Christmas recess. Such debates are normally attended by a junior Minister. Will you use your good offices to ensure that a senior Home Office Minister is on the Bench for the forthcoming debateand will you confirm that it is in the House's power to force a Division on the Christmas Adjournment motion?

Mr. Speaker: There cannot be a Division on the Adjournment motion itself. I ask for Ministers to come to the House, but their rank is up to the Departments concerned. I cannot force a Secretary of State to attend.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that you still have the powerunder Standing Orders, so I think that this is a point of orderto enable two Westminster Hall debates lasting for an hour and a half to be combined as a three-hour debate, should a sufficient number of Members write to you asking for a particular subject to be raised?

Mr. Speaker: I have that power. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order with which I can deal. As he said, if a sufficient number of Members write to me, the power lies with me.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have a ruling on an important matter? In column 897 of the Official Report, dated 15 November, a Government motion states that there is a maximum NHS waiting time of six months. In my constituency, some patients are being asked to wait for between nine and 12 months. May I have a ruling on how that wording can be amended?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman is bound to want to pursue the question of how his constituents are treated. He can ask for an Adjournment debate, or table parliamentary questions. I am very sympathetic to new Members who seek Adjournment debates.

Owen Paterson: rose

John Bercow: rose

Mr. Speaker: I am a very patient Speakerthere is none more patient than Ibut the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) may be pushing his luck.

John Bercow: I hope not!

Mr. Speaker: We will try the hon. Member for North Shropshire.

Owen Paterson: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), Mr. Speaker. What mechanisms exist to allow a vote on an Adjournment motion?

Mr. Speaker: There are no mechanisms to allow a vote in Westminster Hall, but the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, a very experienced Deputy Chief Whip, mentioned the possibility of joining together two Westminster Hall debates to make a three-hour debate. That would make a very good Adjournment debate down in Westminster Hall.

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if I temporarily suffered an identity crisis earlier: I realise that I could not for a moment be mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
	I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of some importance and immediacy. Is it in order for the Government to send representatives to the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Hong Kong, at which binding and irrevocable decisions will be made that will have a dramatic effect on the poorest and most destitute people on the planet, without first arranging for a statement to be made on the Floor of the House or, better still, for a proper debate?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly do not think that is a matter for me.

Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions, I asked the Leader of the House a question relating to the review of public administration in Northern Ireland. The advice tendered by the Leader of the House was that I should have broken into yesterday's debate on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill to raise the matter, which would clearly have been in defiance of the House. Will you rebuke the Leader of the House for his advice, Mr. Speaker, and will you advise him that it would be much better for a Minister to come to the House and make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I get on far too well with the Leader of the House to rebuke him publicly.

Orders of the Day
	  
	European Union (Accessions) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair]

Clause 1
	  
	Accession Treaty

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Douglas Alexander: Clause 1 enables us to implement the accession treaty in United Kingdom law, paving the way for United Kingdom ratification of the treaty later in the year and for Bulgaria and Romania to join the European Union. The clause should be recognisable to all who are familiar with past accession Bills.
	Subsection 1 specifies the accession treaty for Bulgaria and Romania as one of the Community Treaties covered by the European Communities Act 1972. In broad terms, the Act grants automatic effect to directly applicable treaty provisions, and otherwise allows designated Ministers to make regulations amending existing UK legislation to the extent that that may be necessary to implement the treaty.
	It is difficult to speak about this part of the Bill without repeating many points that were covered on Second Reading. I shall be brief, not least because there was a welcome cross-party consensus in the House then on the broad principles of accession.
	With this enlargement, we are continuing to lay the ghosts of the last century to rest. After the bitter divisions of the two world wars and the cold war we are building a more secure, stable and prosperous Europe, and it is a Europe of which Bulgaria and Romania deserve to be part. Both have made giant strides in their political and economic development. Let us not forget that it was only 15 years ago that Ceausescu was overthrown in Romania and communism collapsed in Bulgaria. Today both states meet the European Union's criteria for membership, which is an enormous achievement. Their transformations are not yet complete, however, and as I stressed on Second Reading, accession in 2007 is not a fait accompli for either country.

Andrew Turner: The Minister speaks of laying the ghosts of the last century. Does he accept that 1.5 million of the ghosts are those of the people who suffered in the Armenian massacres? Will he take steps in the future to ensure that some agreement is reached on how the massacres took place before we enable more countries to join the European Union?

Douglas Alexander: I did not expect that issue to be raised directly in relation to clause 1. The British Government's position on the Armenian massacres is a matter of record. Obviously we regard them as a terrible tragedy. I understand that the Government have not designated them a genocide because of the lack of categorical evidence relating to their scale and nature, but I shall be more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I know that the matter continues to be of public concern, and that it has been raised in the context of our other discussions on accession, notably Turkey's accession.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister said that Bulgaria and Romania were undergoing a transition. Does he expect the transition to be complete by the time of accession, or will further steps have to be taken after that?

Douglas Alexander: There are criteria that must be adhered to. We look forward with interest to the Commission's next report, which will be issued in the   spring. It will contain the Commission's latest guidance on the progress that has been made. However, recognising the legal requirementsthe adoption of the acquis, for example, is necessary for all countries to become full members of the EUdoes not diminish the further progress that can be made once countries are members. One needs to consider, for example, the continued economic progress that has been made by the so-called A10 countries joining the EU in 2004. There was no arbitrary stop to the progress that those countries were making towards the European mainstream when accession took place, but we should recognise that there should be rigour and transparency in the process. That is why I applaud the efforts of Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner responsible for enlargement, when he published the last report. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the next report.

Louise Ellman: My right hon. Friend referred to transformation in Romania and Bulgaria, but would he accept that, in the case of Bulgaria, the judicial system is one respect in which insufficient transformation has taken place?

Douglas Alexander: Yes, is the answer to my hon. Friend's question. It is, of course, a matter of profound concern to her and her constituents, in view of the particular consular case about which we have met and in relation to which I offered in an Adjournment debate in the House to have a further meeting with my hon. Friend and her constituent's family. There is scope for further progress in that respect, but I have to tell my hon. Friend candidly that I believe that all who want to see that sort of progress carried forward in Bulgaria should support the country's accession to the European Union. That has already been one of the drivers that has led to some of the progress secured to date. I fully accept, in the light of my hon. Friend's question, that further progress needs to be made. If I recall correctly, that point was reflected in the earlier Commissioner's report to which I referred.
	Progress is also required in the matter of corruption. That means tackling head-on the problem of organised crime, and it also means continuing at a greater pace the programme of judicial, agricultural and environmental reform that both Bulgaria and Romania have already embarked on.

Menzies Campbell: The Minister has, if I may say so, given a series of very elegant answers to penetrating questions, but I would like to ask him a blunt question in the hope that he might provide a blunt answer. If either Romania or Bulgaria fail to meet their obligations in the accession negotiations, does it not remain the case that accession canand, indeed, shouldbe refused?

Douglas Alexander: I yield to no one in my admiration of the elegance of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who could certainly teach many of us lessons in elegance, but not in bluntness. The level of rigour being applied to Bulgaria and Romania easily bears comparison with the A10 countries that entered the EU in 2004. That is why there is tighter provision in respect of the transparency of the standards to which they need to adhere and in the transparency of the process itself than was the case in 2004. Provision has been made for a so-called super safeguard clausesometimes alternatively described as the emergency brake procedurewhereby accession would be delayed by a year from 1 January 2007 until 2008. There are also safeguard clauses in respect of areas in which further progress was identified as necessary in Romania.
	We also need to emphasise that powerful safeguard mechanisms are available to the European Commission in respect of any accession country for three years following its entry into the EU. Those measures are not time limited, but there are clear processes whereby steps can be taken if difficulties emerge once a country joins the EU, and serious infraction procedures can be brought, which would have a very direct bearing on the interests of the countries concerned. Thus there are safeguard clauses and super safeguard clauses and it remains the case, as we have repeatedly said, that we stand four square behind the European Commission in having both transparency and rigour in assessing the necessary standards.

Several hon. Members: rose

Douglas Alexander: I have already been generous in giving way and I am keen to make a little further progress.
	Members on both sides of the House can be assured that we continue to make the point to the Bulgarian and Romanian Governments that more progress is necessaryand, indeed, that both countries need to be aware of the scale of the challenge that they continue to facebut we remain optimistic that they can meet the demanding requirements for membership by next year. The fact that both countries have already demonstrated a capacity to realise impressive change in a relatively short period of time supports that contention.
	The successful transformation of both countries from planned to market economies is perhaps the most visible and tangible evidence of progress. Since the start of the process of European integration in 1999, the gross domestic product of both countries has grown by around 25 per cent. Restructuring and the privatisation of inefficient, and in many cases bankrupt, communist state industries has taken place. Their banking industries have also been privatised and the two states have rapidly integrated themselves with western European and world markets. Indeed, the EU has been the accession countries' main trading partner for several years now.
	Profound changes in the business environment have also taken place, with the creation of food standards agencies, competition regulators, labour inspectorates and even insurance market supervisors. That will, I believe, help UK firms doing business in and with those two countries.
	The prospect of EU membership has given a major impetus to ongoing improvements in both states' environmental policies and their health and safety standards[Interruption.]

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have heard a statement about how keen these countries are to come into the EU, but is it not rather surprising, after the fiasco of the European constitution, that neither country conducted a referendum on whether their people wanted to join?

Douglas Alexander: It is not for me to prescribe either to the other 24 members of the EU or to candidate countries the mechanism by which they should seek to enter into their international obligations. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, many hon. Members, would look askance at another country trying to dictate to the UK what constitutional mechanism was appropriate in those circumstances.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Minister speaks authoritatively about Romania. One of his predecessors, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), admitted in a previous debate that he had spent all of six hours during his ministerial career visiting Bucharest. How often has the Minister visited Romania, and does he intend to visit the country in future so that he can be better prepared to discuss it than his predecessors?

Douglas Alexander: I am happy to answer the question directly and acknowledge that, in view of the burdens of our presidency obligations since my appointment back in May, I have not yet visited Romania. I did take the opportunity early in my ministerial post to meet our British ambassador and discuss with him the progress that continues to be madeI am pleased to say with the assistance of British civil servants as well as a range of other bodiesin Romania. Not least because it is standard procedure when meeting British ambassadors to request a visit to the said country, I gave an undertaking to the British ambassador in Bucharest that I hoped to be able to visit Romania fairly shortly after the end of the British presidency. One can readily imagine, in view of the number of countries within the EU at the momentand on account of future financing, which I have no intention of discussing this afternoonthat pressures on ministerial time are considerable and that a range of visits already lie ahead for me in the remaining weeks of the British presidency.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the Minister give way?

Douglas Alexander: I will give way one final time, but then I want to make further progress.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend was talking a few moments ago about privatisation in Romania and Bulgaria. Is privatisation being made a requirement for those countries before they enter the EU or are they just being encouraged to privatise where appropriate? Given that many of the larger industries in western Europe are still under public ownership and do very well in the public sector, are we to press those two countries to privatise beyond what is expected here?

Douglas Alexander: I sense that, as far as my hon. Friend is concerned, that debate is not restricted to the Romanian or Bulgarian economy. We have had the opportunity and privilege of debating similar matters in respect of the UK, never mind the potential accession countries to the EU in the past. It is a commonsense point that the EU is a union of liberal democracies that operate on the basis of market economies, so I make no apology for the fact that transition was necessary in Romania and Bulgaria from the state-controlled industries of the communist eraunder the leadership of Ceausescu and othersto the position today, whereby impressive levels of economic growth have been achieved year on year. In the light of the domestic policies followed by Bulgaria and Romania, it might be challenging for my hon. Friend to examine his own prescription for securing economic growth and compare it with that taken forward by the Governments of those two countries.
	Subsection (2) approves for the purposes of section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 the provisions of the accession treaty in so far as they relate to the powers of the European Parliament. It is important to note that the accession treaty does not create new powers for the Parliament; rather, it increases the geographical scope of the existing powers by making provision for the future participation of MEPs from Bulgaria and Romania. It consequently applies those existing powers to nationals of states to whom they could not otherwise have been applied before the treaty's entering into force.

Graham Brady: rose

Douglas Alexander: As with the previous Bill on accession, the inclusion of this provision is therefore a precautionary measure to put beyond doubt Parliament's approval of those parts of the accession treaty concerned with the European Parliament's powers.

Graham Brady: I am not sure whether the Minister is giving way or has finished. [Interruption.] Given that he has finished, I hope that he will respond in due course to the point that I was about to put to himI shall raise it laterhad he accepted an intervention from me.
	The Minister was commendably brief and I shall seek to be likewise. He knows, given the nature of our debate on Second Reading, that there is broad agreement across the House on the desirability of Romanian and Bulgarian accession, and, indeed, a broad welcome for enlargement of the European Union. As has been touched on in some interventions, accession is beneficial to the new member states, and the process itself brings benefits, as we are seeing in Romania and Bulgaria and in other places. It also benefits the EU as a whole, helping to lock in the benefits of democracy and the rule of law, and the importance of tackling corruption, fraud, and organised crime. All such efforts have been redoubled in recent times during the accession process. However, there is still a long way to go, as the Minister accepted.
	The Minister spoke throughout his speech about Romania and Bulgaria as though they are proceeding in parallel, with no difference between them. It would help the Committee to know the Government's and the Minister's own assessment of the two countries' separate progress toward accession, and the extent to which each has met the required criteria.

Douglas Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman is kind enough to allow me to intervene on him, I am happy to confirm that the British Government have no assessment independent of that made recently by the Commission. I think that he is anticipating the question of whether we recognise that each country should be judged on its own merits, rather than being taken together in all circumstances. I am happy to assure him that, notwithstanding the nature of the reports simultaneously produced for Bulgaria and Romania, we absolutely recognise the importance of each country's being judged on its own merits.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. It is important that each country be judged on its own merits, not least because, as I mentioned on Second Reading, there is the slightly odd arrangement whereby the mechanisms for assessing the two countries are different. We need to bear that point in mind.
	Progress is being made in tackling corruption and organised crime, but the importance of doing so cannot be overstated, not least in the context of accession to the EU itself, and of the implications within a single market once these countries have joined EU-funded programmes. We should bear in mind the possibility of very large sums of Britishand other EU countries'taxpayers' money going in to Romania and Bulgaria at a time when they perhaps lack the administrative capacity to manage such sums in an acceptable way.

Philip Hollobone: Does my hon. Friend share my and the Commission's concern at the fact that not a single successful high-level prosecution for corruption has been made in these accession countries?

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The countries in question know that they are being monitored in this regard, and we hear a great deal of talk about their determination to improve. This is an extremely important issue, particularly given the implications for the EU itself and for current member states, should accession take place in the near future.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely positive that the political consensus in both Romania and Bulgaria is that joining the EU is an essentially positive move?

Graham Brady: Absolutely, and I might go a little further by pointing to the welcomeif slightly unusualdevelopment whereby consensus on EU matters exists in this House.

William Cash: rose

Graham Brady: I spoke too soon, Sir Michael.

William Cash: I am afraid that my hon. Friend did speak a little too soon. Having listened to representatives from Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, and given events in Hungary concerning the excessive deficit procedure, my feeling is thatnotwithstanding those of us who are in favour of enlargementsome people are living in complete cloud cuckoo land on the question of the kind of Europe that we need to develop. I will not go into that issue in detail now as I hope to make a speech on it later, but we need to be very cautious in assuming that, by absorbing the whole of the existing legal framework of the European treaties, we can maintain the consensus that enlargement is a good idea. That is to say nothing of the question of Turkey.

Graham Brady: I am delighted that there is consensus. Although we welcome the move toward the final objective of accession for Romania and Bulgaria, Members in all parts of the House accept that there are some real difficulties, as my hon. Friend rightly highlights. I shall return in a momentbrieflyto the specific issue that he raised.
	The timetable set out for accession is very short indeed. If accession is to take place in January 2007, satisfactory progress must have been made in the next few monthsby April 2006, I think. There is strong support in this House for the accession of both countries, but it must take place at the right time and under the right circumstances. It is worth noting the remarks of the Enlargement Commissioner, who said as recently as last week:
	If needed, we won't hesitate to recommend, in spring 2006, to postpone accession by one year.
	We must accept that, even in that event, we are looking a very short timetable for what is a significant programme of work and change in the two accession countries.

Anthony Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for delaying accessionI am wholly in favour of Romania and Bulgaria joining the EUis the level of people trafficking, particularly child trafficking, in both countries? There is no offence of child trafficking in this country, as I found out by tabling a parliamentary question on this issue. Does he share my desire that this appalling and obscene practice be stamped on as hard as possible, and does he agree that the British Government should do all that they can to ensure that that happens?

Graham Brady: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point; the whole House will want that issue to be tackled with great vigour.
	We should note that we are considering not just the accession treaty but the protocol to it, which has particular implications for the applicant countries. Here, I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made in an intervention. Of course, I cannot go down the route of discussing an amendment that was tabled but not selected, Sir Michael, but I should point out that the protocol provides for the constitution's implementation in both accession countries, should it be in place at the time of accession. I do not want to go into detail on this issue, but it is absolutely clear that we ought to be much more certain about the kind of EU that we are considering bringing new member states into.
	The accession process continues: today, we are considering Romania and Bulgaria, and accession talks began recently for Croatia and Turkey. The more countries begin the process, the greater the need for real clarity about the nature of the EU.

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 18 November the German coalition Governmentand I believe that Angela Merkel is here todaymade a commitment to complete the ratification of the constitutional treaty during the German presidency of the EU in the first half of 2007? I have just been hearing evidence about the charter of fundamental rights, but putting to one side that charter's implementation, there is no doubt that there is an impetus to achieving treaty ratification. Although my hon. Friend is completely right to raise the treaty question, what do we do about it? What sort of Europe do we really want?

Graham Brady: I hesitate to stray too far from the subject of this debate, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the German coalition has committed itself to driving the constitution forward. Several other member states remain committed to the project, and one of the unfortunate missed opportunities of the British presidency over the past five months is that the Government have failed to put an end to the constitutional treaty process. However, that must happen if we are to accommodate the more diverse and larger EU that is emerging, and make it easier for countries such as Turkey to join. The EU that will thus develop will have the sort of flexibility that will make our relationship with it easier and more comfortable.
	The Opposition strongly support the objective of Romanian and Bulgarian accession to the EU, but it is essential to get it right. We support the Bill, but urge the Minister and his colleagues to give the applicant countries the closest possible scrutiny, as well as the support and assistance that they need as the progress towards accession.

Louise Ellman: The matters being considered under clause 1 are extremely important. Accession to the EU is of great importance to the applicant countries and to the UK. Applicant countries have to be assessed by the European Commission, as must the compatibility of their domestic legal practices with the European convention on human rights. Only then can ratification take place.
	I want to register my grave concern that Bulgaria may not be ready for admission to the EU in January 2007. I ask the Government to withhold support for that country's application.
	I submitted a written question to my right hon. Friend the Minister about the European Commission's enhanced monitoring report on the state of Bulgaria. In his answer of 21 November, he said that he accepted the Commission's view that Bulgaria should review its pre-trial phase and improve the accountability of its justice system. I am interested in this matter because of the experience of my constituent Michael Shields.
	Michael Shields, now aged 19, is serving 15 years in prison in Bulgaria for the attempted murder of Martin Georgiev near the Big Ben fish and chip bar in Varna at around 5.30 am on 30 May. Another man, Graham Sankey, has confessed to the crime, saying that
	an innocent man has received blame for what I did,
	but he has not been questioned about that confession. Michael has always protested his innocence. He says that he was asleep at the time and has produced evidence to substantiate the claim.
	I held an Adjournment debate on this subject on 17 November, which can be found in the Official Report for that date, columns 121116. I set out the reasons for my concern in detail then, and I repeat my thanks to ministerial colleagues for their help in this matter. In this debate, however, I want to focus on the judicial aspects of Michael Shields's experience, which are relevant to our consideration of the accession treaty. I shall look at the European Commission's expressed concern, and the compatibility of Bulgaria's practices with the ECHR.
	My first point has to do with the status of the prosecution in Bulgaria. The defence in the Michael Shields case has stated that the prosecution is part of the judiciary. If that is true, it raises major questions about the principle of equality of armsthat is, the status of the prosecution in relation to the defence. There is a major question about the quality of justice if the defence is put at a disadvantage in court, in breach of article 6 of the ECHR.
	Secondly, I draw the House's attention to the detail of the conduct of the trial, and of the pre-trial phase. Stephen Jacobi, the renowned human rights lawyer and director of Fair Trial Abroad, was the international observer at the trial of Michael Shields in Varna. In a written report, he has stated that the way in which identification was authenticated was quite appalling.
	In addition, there appears to have been no protection of the crime scene and no forensics were undertaken to assist identification of witnesses. In court, witnesses resiled from their police statements that they could not remember the face of the assailant. Dock identification was permitteda practice that Stephen Jacobi says was outlawed 50 years ago in the UK. The prison governor produced a prejudiced statement in court, but it was not questioned by the defence, and there were major queries concerning the identity parade and pre-trial publicity.
	Moreover, witness accounts differed. People in the bar said that they had not seen the whole incident, but all of them claimed that a stone had been clutched to the assailant's chest before being dropped on Martin Georgiev. People outside the bar saw more of the incident, and said that the stone had been brought down from above the assailant's head.
	Another problem has to do with the new witness, Mr. A. His eye-witness evidence has been notarised and legalised, and he has stated that he is absolutely certain that the perpetrator was not Michael Shields. When he returned to the scene of the crime the following morning, a witness whom he had seen the night before told him that he and at least another 10 people would testify that the perpetrator was
	a fat lad with black hair.
	Mr. A. therefore felt assured that there were numerous witnesses, and so did not offer evidence himself. However, those same bar witnesses said in court that the fair-haired Michael Shields was the guilty party. Mr. A. has now come forward and given a legalised and notarised statement, and is willing to testify in Bulgaria.

Anthony Steen: It may help the hon. Lady to know that three members of the European Scrutiny Committee are in the Chamber today, and that I am due to visit Bulgaria in about 10 days. If she will furnish me with further information, I should be pleased to take the matter up with the Bulgarian authorities.

Louise Ellman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and shall certainly take up his very kind offer.
	I am concerned that the ECHR could be infringed by the court's bizarre failure to question Graham Sankey following his confession. The court's rejection of that confession, with no questioning of Mr. Sankey, is inexplicable. It is inconsistent with the actions of the Bulgarian authority in attempting to question Graham Sankey before that confession was made.
	I am deeply disturbed by the wrong information that has been recorded in the Bulgarian official record of judicial proceedings. The official statement entitled, Reason for the Judgement dated 10 November 2005 states that Graham Sankey
	was not summoned to the court hearing as the English authorities could not find him and serve him with a writ of summons.
	The facts are very different. The facts, as authenticated by our Home Office, are that the Bulgarian authorities issued a summons for Graham Sankey incorrectly. The summons arrived at the Home Office on 11 July, giving the United Kingdom central authority nine days rather than the required six weeks to serve it. The UK authority did not attempt to serve the summons, so the Bulgarians tried to speak to Graham Sankey before he made the confession. They handled that wrongly. Their record of what happened is factually incorrect yet, when he made the confession, the Bulgarians did not attempt to question him. As the matter is under Bulgarian jurisdiction, it is entirely a matter for the Bulgarians. They can, of course, ask the United Kingdom police to inquire on their behalf, but they have failed to do so.
	I am also extremely concerned to see contradictory information in official reports from Bulgarian judicial authorities in reference to this case. The indictment issued by the Varna prosecutor's office stated:
	At the time of the offence Shields was not under the influence of any psychoactive substances, alcohol or cannabis.
	Yet the official statement entitled, Reasons for the Judgement Returned relating to Michael Shields's failed appeal issued on 10 November 2005 said:
	At the time of the offence the defendant was influenced by alcohol.
	Those are two contradictory statements made by official judicial bodies in Bulgaria referring to this case. I find that of added concern.
	The details that I have given are examples of a large number of concerns about Michael Shields' situation. I have given them because I believe that they underline the European Commission's concerns about the readiness or otherwise of the Bulgarians to become members of the EU. I am extremely concerned about my constituent Michael Shields. His family are devastated. They are campaigning strongly for justice and I will continue to stand with them until we receive it.
	I have referred to this matter in this Committee because it is relevant to Bulgaria's joining the EU. The EU monitoring has drawn attention to the deficiencies in the Bulgarian judicial system, including accountability, openness and the pre-trial phase. The illustrations from Michael Shields's case demonstrate that principle in a clear way, and I am extremely concerned. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reject Bulgaria's accession pending further investigation of this unacceptable situation and to enable consideration to take place of whether it is indicative of the wider concerns expressed by the Commission on Bulgaria's judicial processes. This is a matter of justice for Michael Shields, but it is also about the suitability and readiness of Bulgaria to become a member of the EU in January 2007.

Nicholas Clegg: As a newcomer to this Committee and a pro-European one at that, I can be lulled into a great sense of comfort that there is such a great deal of cross-party consensus about the Bill and clause 1, notwithstanding the eloquent evidence that we have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) about the plight of Michael Shields and the clear failings in the Bulgarian judicial system, and notwithstanding the slightly morehow can I phrase it?ideological objections to the whole process of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: No, practical.

Nicholas Clegg: Practical concerns. Therein lies a great and, I fear, adjacent debate that will no doubt arise at another time.
	Notwithstanding that cross-party consensus, some tension and legitimate concern arises from clause 1 and the terms on which Bulgaria and Romania are joining the EU. The treaty of accession provides a short-term safeguard clause that could jeopardise the final entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU, but only for 12 months. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised that issue on Second Reading. It is a legitimate one, and it has been echoed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
	What happens if Romania and Bulgaria are proved to have failed in their final preparations to become members of the EU? I fear that we are caught in a cleft stick. The accession treaty commits us to accepting Romania and Bulgaria into the EU almost come hell or high water. While there is a safeguard clause, it only defers but does not permanently postpone or put off accession. At a political level, once they have joined, the ability of the EU authorities to exercise any leverage over the domestic reform process is significantly weakened.
	As I mentioned on Second Reading, the manner in which the final stages of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria are handled would set an important precedent for much more controversial accessions, notably that of Turkey, if the negotiations with Turkey are ever concluded. The EU needs somehow, within fairly narrow parameters, to exercise influence over Romania and Bulgaria in the remaining stages of the accession process in as rigorous a manner as possible.
	I draw the attention of the Minister to the annexes, with which he will no doubt be familiar, to the accession treaty, which spell out in considerable detail what Romania and Bulgaria are expected to do to get over the final hurdle of their accession. I cite annexe IX, headed, Specific commitments undertaken, and requirements accepted, by Romania at the conclusion of the accession negotiations on 14 December 2004. It says that Romaniathe same applies to Bulgaria in a separate annexeundertakes
	To . . . implement an . . . Action Plan and Strategy for the Reform Of The Judiciary,
	to enact anti-corruption legislation, and ensure
	the effective independence of the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutors' Office . . . To conduct an independent audit of the . . . current National Anti-Corruption Strategy,
	to introduce
	a clear legal framework for . . . co-operation between, gendarmerie and the police
	and so on.
	In a separate annexe, there are similarly detailed requirements for Romania to respect the Schengen action plan and ensure a high level of control and surveillance at Romania's external borders, which will of course act as the external borders of the EU. Those are substantive commitments set out in some detail.I have no doubt that the Commission will return to an examination of those commitments when it draws up its own monitoring surveillance reportI forget the formal titlein spring next year.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that, if the Commission recommends a further 12-month delay because of any failure to implement those annexes, which I think are a legally binding part of the accession treaty alluded to in clause 1, the Government will accept that as necessary. In common with previous speakers in the Committee, I ask what will happen if, after that 12-month period, Bulgaria and Romania have failed to implement the requirements to tackle corruption, ensure a secure external EU border, reform the judiciary and implement the necessary legislation to root out malpractice in the criminal justice system? What could we possibly do? The Minister referred to a period of three years during which the EU would be able to take some exceptional safeguard measures, but I should be grateful for any further detail he can provide about how they would operate during that crucial period, after which, I take it, there would be almost no meaningful leverage over the domestic reform process.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe referred to privatisation and his opposite number on the Conservative Front Bench, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) talked about corruption. I want to bring the two subjects together.
	In other accessions to the European Union, we have seen rushed privatisation and a degree of corruption. In Hungary, for example, the leader of the alleged Socialist party made a personal fortune from privatisation. His party is now so keen on privatisation, so right-wing and so free market, it is no longer a socialist party in any sense. Indeed, the New Statesman cast a slur on the character of Baroness Thatcher by suggesting that, if she were Hungarian, she would vote for the Socialist party. That is unfair, because it is not at all a nice party. It is significant, however, that the Hungarian opposition party, which is Catholic-based, conservative and anti-communist, resists the privatisation of public services, and has become the party of the left.
	The Catholic collectivism that was typical of Christian Democrats in Europe is being broken down by a rush to neo-liberalism and the free market. That is where the real division is occurring, significantly in Germany where Angela Merkel is trying to move away from Catholic collectivism and towards the market. That causes tension in Germany, even in her party.
	I look forward to Bulgaria and Romania becoming members of the EU. Neo-liberalism and the free market should not be conditions of their membership. One reason I am so keen on enlargement is that it would inevitably mean a much looser association of member states, where each country could determine its own economic policy according to its democratic choices. That is the Europe I want and I think one or two Opposition Members want that, too. They may choose to take a much more conservative approach to running economies. I might choose a more social democratic or democratic socialist approach, but we would have that democratic choice; it would not be determined by the EU.

William Cash: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have attempted to put those arguments on a number of occasions. Does he agree that it would be better to try to reform the system before it implodes with possibly extremely dangerous consequences for democracy throughout Europe? We can draw on the example of what happened in France recently, which some of us predicted, as an indication of the creation of a compression chamber that simply does not work.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. In Hungary, the economy is doing well in some senses, but povertycertainly relative povertyhas increased. It is said that some people were better off under communism. If the market leads to poverty and to a serious division between rich and poor in those countries, people will say such things.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend accept that the idea of a market economy is fundamental to the whole concept of the European Union?

Kelvin Hopkins: We have lived in a market economy since the second world war, but the extent of the state's role in the economy and the degree of public or private ownership is for each country to choose. Since the second world war, we have had a mixed economy, which worked extremely well in the first three decades. I advocate that approach to running our economy even now. It certainly worked better than what has happened since. In many areas of Europe, public utilities and services are still run in a traditional, social democratic, post-war way and they work extremely well. I would argue that case for the UK as well as for Europe.
	In Russia, after the collapse of communism, there was a rush to privatisation and at the same time the adoption of a hard rouble policy, which caused economic chaos. There was a serious reduction of output and living standards fell. Only when the rouble was floated and the process slowed down did the Russian economy begin to recover.
	Each country should be able to choose the exchange rate appropriate to its economic needs. One reason why I support the Chancellor so strongly in keeping us out of the euro is that we can choose the exchange rate suited to our needs. Exchange rates are essential springs and buffers between economies. They are necessary; they can be stable, there can be a pegged system, but they should be changeable. That is how we should operate with the new member states. They should not be encouraged to join the euro. While they are weaker, they should be able to decide what is best for their economieschoosing their own exchange rates, interest rates and fiscal balance between tax and spend.
	Bulgaria and Romania should be allowed to decide what is best for their economies and not be told how to run them from outside by the EU. That may lead to problems and voices may call for a return to the old authoritarian system, although that would not be the wish of the democrats in the EU. The EU should not press strongly that those economies operate in a particular way; it should allow them to operate as is best in each case. We should open our markets to some of their goods and allow them to depreciate their currency if that would make them more competitive. We should urge them to adopt proper rules for their workers, such as good trade union standards and employment rights, so that workers have a proper share of the benefits of their developing economies, but we should not insist that they privatise their economies.
	Recently, I visited Austria and Hungary with the Rail Freight Group to look at rail freight facilities. In Hungary, we spoke to senior figures in the Government and the railway industry about rail freight. The bulk of the rail freight system is still publicly owned and it is doing well. It makes a profit and provides the Government with funds that help the Hungarian people. There is a small private sector that is losing money but there is still pressure to privatise. If the Hungarian rail freight system was privatised and bought up, perhaps by a Russian oligarch with plenty of spare cash, the profits would not go to the Hungarian people. It could go towards buying expensive football clubs in Britainwho knows? At present, the benefits of that publicly owned freight system go to the Hungarian people. That is what we should allow those countries to do, not force them to privatise.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman makes an articulate case for his allegation that the terms of accession impose a neo-liberal economic philosophy on countries that join. He will be aware that, for other critics of the EU, many of whom can be found on the Conservative Benches, there is not enough imposition of neo-liberal economics. For them, the EU is a hotbed of over-regulated, social democratic, wishy-washy economic mismanagement. Does he accept that both allegations cannot be right and that it is conceivable that both are equally wrong?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There is a serious debate both in the EU as a whole and in its member states. I hope that I am participating in that debate and making a strong point for the social democratic systems that worked so well after the second world war, which are being systematically dismantled. That is a great mistake. Opposition Members may choose a neo-liberal approach. We might choose a social democratic approach, but we should be able to choose democratically in our own countries. We should not be told, or even advised, by the bureaucracy of the EU to operate in a particular way.
	I finish by referring to corruption, which seems to be almost endemic in the EU. The European Court of Auditors has failed to approve the EU's accounts for 10 or 11 years running. The European aid system is inefficient and corrupt and the aid does not go to the right places. The Department for International Development does a much better job, and we have made that point many times as well. The EU must look hard to itself if we want to stop corruption developing or even getting worse in countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, which are much weaker.
	It is significant that corruption in the poorer world is almost endemic. It is only when countries become relatively egalitarian and rich that corruption can be addressed seriously. However, we have those things in western European countries, and we still have corruption, so there is a problem. The best way to avoid corruption is when countries have to look after their own economies. If they are spending someone else's money, they will be much more casual about how they spend it and what they do with it.
	I urge the House to support the entry of Bulgaria and Romanian into the EU, but we should allow them to develop their economies as they see fitsubject, of course, to proper human rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said, and employment rights, environmental conditions and all those other things that are beneficial to the whole world. However, we should allow them to run their own economies, not force them into a particular mould.

William Cash: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), partly because we have tracked each other's thoughts on these subjects for the best part of 10 years or so, but also because this is a critical time at which to consider the accession of new countries. I have repeatedly stated that I am in favour of enlargement, but I have asked as a rider to that argument what kind of Europe we want and what kind of Europe we should have. The problem is exacerbated or illustrated by, for example, what has been going on in France and the Netherlands. The rejection of the referendums in those two countries illustrates the political divorce that has emerged between the people and the elites, whether in individual countries or the EU as a whole.
	I told my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that I thought an element of cloud cuckoo land was apparent. I was referring not specifically to what he was saying, but to the inability of Opposition or Government Front-Benchers to grapple with the vacuum that has emerged between the realities of what is going on in Europe and the aspirations that,   for example, are contained in the European constitution. We are still waiting for the Government to announce what they will do having secured the Second Reading of the European Union Bill, which dealt with the constitution. [Interruption.] I do not know what the Minister is chuntering aboutperhaps he would like to intervene.

Douglas Alexander: I was just observing to my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), that the words Bulgaria and Romania had not yet been uttered by the hon. Gentleman and was pointing out the fact that we have debated the Bill on Second Reading, when hon. Members had the opportunity to range widely in their remarks.

William Cash: I regard that as a pretty irrelevant comment. The nature and form of the EU will be affected by these accession arrangements. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that the current gross domestic product per capita of the 25 member states is $21,800. That figure happens to be half that of Norway and Switzerland, and it will inevitably decrease when Bulgaria and Romania join. The important point is that we have a regressive, declining EU economy, which will be made worse by bringing in countries that will inevitably drag that figure further down. We could avoid a lot of those difficulties if we were to have a different kind of Europe.
	The kind of Europe that I should like would be based on associate status, along the lines of the European Free Trade Association. Some adjustment may be needed, but that is basically the direction in which we should be going. Indeed, a recent ICM poll showed that, when the people of this country were asked what kind of EU they wantedwhether they wanted one as it stands now, or one with associate status along EFTA lines60 per cent. of all those asked and 68 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds said that they wanted the latter. So there is a political problem for the Government.

Peter Bone: I understand that the Prime Minister stated that enlargement could not take place without a European constitution, so I wonder whether he is beginning to agree with my hon. Friend that we must consider a different form of Europe?

William Cash: Indeed. The Prime Minister's speech to the European Parliament and his and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches on the reform of the EUall of which will have an impact on Bulgaria and Romania, let alone the other countries in eastern and central Europe and elsewherecombine to illustrate the fact that, struggling against the elite of Europe, there are apparently glimmerings of Euroscepticism in the future Prime Minister, by which I mean, in immediate terms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone knows that that change will happen in the next 18 months, and anyone who has read the books of people such as Robert Peston and others who provide well sourced, intelligent analyses of what is going on know what elements are involved.
	I refer, for example, to the Treasury pamphlet that the Chancellor of Exchequer produced the other day in which he clearly repudiated even the social model for Europe. I should be interested to know whether or not the Minister was party to that pamphlet, which amounted to a repudiation of the existing European economic model. The Chancellor called for more global markets and more competitiveness. He illustrated his concern that the Lisbon agenda was not functioning properly.

Nicholas Clegg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a man whom I doubt is close in his affectionsJacques Delors, the former President of the European Commissionhas also stated on record on a number of occasions his own doubts about the pursuit of an over-integrated EU social model in terms with which the hon. Gentleman would agree? Does he not agree that his stereotype of what it is to be sceptical or pro-European is wildly out of date, when fervent pro-Europeans such as Jacques Delors agree with him, at least in part, on something as crucial as social policy?

William Cash: I am extremely glad that that is taking place. It certainly was not when I met Mr. Delors in the 1980s, since when things have changed significantly and, I am glad to say, in the right direction. Indeed, my point about the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister shows that the glimmerings of realism are coming into the picture. The hon. Gentleman may not know that I was brought up in Hallam. I spent my early childhood there. My parents still live there.

Kelvin Hopkins: Do they vote Liberal Democrat?

William Cash: They certainly do not vote Liberal Democrat.
	The Prime Minister himself said in February 2000 that Britain could, of course, survive outside the EU and that we could probably access the single market as Norway and Switzerland do, but think of the changes that have taken place since then. I have strongly urged my party to be realistic about getting reforms under waywhether that is while we are in opposition or, hopefully, when we are in governmentbefore the compression chamber that is being created implodes.
	The application of the Maastricht surveillance criteria is about as deadly, boring and tedious a subject as one can possibly imagine, but I was glancing at a book in the Library last night about the impact of EUROSTAT case law. I suspect that no one has the faintest idea that such a book is there to be read, even if they had the time or inclination to do so. However, the application has an extremely serious impact on the way in which the criteria for each member states are collated by the European Union through EUROSTAT. That is the basis on which economic forecasting is made and economic criteria are judged for member states, includingunder the Billaccession states such as Bulgaria and Romania.
	It might surprise some hon. Members that Hungary, which has been brought into the loop of member states only recently, is being pursued under the terms of the avowedly failed stability and growth pact. I opposed the pact vigorously when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Chancellor of the Exchequer and exchanged strong correspondence with him about it. He wrote to all Members of Parliament to say what a wonderful deal it was, and I wrote to all Conservative Members to tell them not to vote for it because it was going to be a disaster. It was an accident waiting to happensure enough, it did.
	Due to the failed stability and growth pact, it is suggested that action by Hungary under the excessive deficit procedure is inadequate. The country is being told that it is simply not complying with the rules. The Commission states that in September 2005, the Hungarian authorities submitted a revised excessive deficit procedure notification to announce that it had a 2005 deficit of 6.1 per cent. of GDP instead of the targeted 3.6 per cent.that is double.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that forcing countries with high unemployment to tighten fiscal policy and deflate their economies further is indeed stupid, as Signor Prodi has said?

William Cash: I would go furtherI cite the idea that such countries should be fined, although countries that are not members of the eurozone do not suffer a fine. Look at the situation regarding Italy, for example. The stability and growth pact is such an enormous failure because it is simply unrealistic. It does not work, and the remedies that are applied to ensure that there can somehow be compliance with the rules impose further penalties on countries, which makes it even less likely that they can achieve their objectives.
	I differ from the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the importance of human rights legislation. Just before I came into the Chamber, I was taking evidence from a distinguished European lawyer about the charter of fundamental rights. It might be news to several hon. Members in the Chamber that the charter is alive and kicking. It did not go down with the constitutionI can say that unequivocally. Although it appeared to have done so, it did not in practice. The European Court of Justice itself is applying the criteria of the charter, so that will be of direct relevance to countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, especially given the problems to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) referred in her important remarks. For example, there is the problem of the Roma.
	The promotion of employment law, the right to work and a raft of social measures are part of the charter of fundamental rights. A communication from the European Commission has announced that all legislation initiated by the Commissionin other words all European legislation initiatedmust henceforth be compliant with the charter of fundamental rights. As the Commission is able to do that due to its right of initiation under the existing treaties, nothing can stop the charter from being brought in piecemeal through every piece of legislation that is initiated.
	The communication will be debated in a European Standing Committee in Januarythanks to myself and one or two other members of the European Scrutiny Committeeand much good may it do us. However, as the Minister knows only too well, there is no mechanism for ensuring that a vote in such Committees is effective against further orders passed by the House.
	The economies of Europe are failing within the framework of the European Union because of the mistakes that were made over the Maastricht criteria, the mistakes that were made with the working time directive and the mistakes that were made in a whole raft of social legislation. However, we find that the charter of fundamental rights will itself be brought into our legislation through section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. It will be enforced by our courts and by the European Court of Justice. The Bulgarians and the Romanians will find that the problems with their economies, which have already been explained by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, will be exacerbated because measures such as the charter of fundamental rights will have an adverse impact on the way in which they are run. It is a Catch-22 situation.
	The problem is that the economies of Europe, whether that is the economy of Europe as a whole, or the economies of individual member statesand of Bulgaria and Romania in particularare all in disarray, which is creating low growth and high unemployment. That was the root cause of the reason why the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution. People said, Oh, that was because the French didn't like Chirac, but they did not like Chirac because the economy was not working, and the economy was not working because of these crazy rules, all of which are based on an ideology that does not workit does not work for the developing world, either.
	Members of the European Scrutiny Committee had the pleasure of meeting a delegation of Members of Parliament from the Czech Republic the other day. By the way, they were not, with one exception, from the right of that country's political spectrum. They were social democrats. I shall not mention their names because that would be unreasonable. They said that they had been enthusiastic about entry to the EU, probably, one must say, because they knew that they would get a lot of money out of it, as well as stability and improved relationships with other countries to address the vacuum in central and eastern Europe on matters of defence and foreign policy. However, they said that their enthusiasm was becoming significantly reduced. What they had anticipated is not what is happening. They criticised the regulation and interference of European legislation and said that before joining the EU, the Czech Republic had been self-sufficient in agricultural products, but owing to European regulations, it is now a net importer. The sugar beet market had been badly hit by the imposition of EU regulations, and unemployment is coming out of that. That is all because of crazy European rules, which are doing devastating damage to countries that have just come into the EU.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman make the case for each country to determine its own agricultural policy rather than being forced to accept a policy that applies across the EU?

William Cash: Absolutely, and I should not have to stand here making an obvious case. I would love the Minister to explain to us what on earth the Foreign Secretary and, more particularly, the Prime Minister think they are doing by creating all the ingredients for the collapse and implosion of the EU.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That would have to be done within the context of clause 1 stand part, which might be difficult. I think that the hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to that.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

William Cash: I thought that might produce an enthusiastic response from Labour Members.
	The reality is that the Czechs are suffering. The same can be said of other member states that are affected by the way in which the EU has been going.

Peter Bone: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a survey commissioned by the delegation of the European Commission in Romania, 56 per cent. of Romanians believed that accession would bring more drawbacks than advantages in the short term?

William Cash: I am glad that my hon. Friend has done that research. Again, that is the realistic position. The debate is clearly about Bulgaria and Romania in particular, but when talking about the EU, we cannot dissociate the problems of individual member states from the impact it has on the whole. If they have to come in on terms that simply will not work for them, the case for reform is crystal clear. As I said, the Czechs have discovered serious drawbacks to the system. The same goes, therefore, for the prospects of those from Bulgaria and Romania.
	We also discussed corruption in the judicial process and so on, and there are serious and critical problems at every point on the compass. In a report in The Times today, we even find, from an announcement by the Commission yesterday, which has not yet come before the European Scrutiny Committee, that nine areas of criminal law are to be brought into line to co-ordinate criminal law throughout Europe. Again, that is all part of the accession process. Are accession countries aware of what they are letting themselves in for?
	It is not negative and anti-European to be pro-democratic. The problem is that there is a complete and total refusal by the Government, the Minister and the Prime Minister to be realistic about what is going on. The simplest answer would be to have a thorough examination of existing treaties, as conducted by the European reform forum. Today we had evidence from Liberty and Justice. We have heard from Lord David Owen, and Lord Dahrendorf will also give evidence.
	The forum is examining existing treaties with a view to highlighting the problems in which Bulgaria and Romania will find themselves. I make no apology for using this opportunity to get across to the House, through Hansard, the importance of having effective and serious reform. Otherwise, there will be withdrawal from the EU sooner or later. If we continue to pursue such policies, an implosion is on its way. The Prime Minister knows that because of the failure of the Lisbon agenda, his presidency and the French and Dutch referendums. Those failures are indicative of what is to come, and the warnings have been given. It is up to those in government to listen. If they do not, when Europe dissolves into greater difficulties, and perhaps even chaos, with movements to the far right on the back of instability and racial tension, the responsibility will lie with the Government, their Ministers and the European Union.

Wayne David: This has developed into an interesting and broad debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I try to bring things back to Bill and the clause in particular. I shall also keep my comments brief.
	I have visited Bulgaria regularly for a number of years and have seen at first hand the remarkable progress there. There is genuine political consensus and, I believe, a feeling throughout the country that joining the EU is essentially desirable because it will enhance the economy and reinforce Bulgaria's democratic development.
	Successful negotiations have led to the treaty that we are considering. The European Commission has conducted various reports. Recently, however, it concluded that there are serious shortcomings in Bulgaria and that problems need to be addressed rapidly and firmly before it is adjudged ready to join the EU. The comprehensive monitoring report set out clearly and starkly both what progress has been made and what needs to be done. We are waiting for the final recommendation of the European Commission to the Council in April or May next year.
	Among the concerns expressed by the European Commission about Bulgaria are the large number of uninsured vehicles, shortcomings in the veterinary sector, and the need to reinforce the administrative structures, in particular with a view to administering European agricultural and structural funds effectively. Concerns have been expressed about the criminal justice system and, as has been mentioned, how the Roma minority are treated.
	Some of those issues were discussed yesterday in theEuropean Scrutiny Committee. The Bulgarian ambassador took part in that discussion. He went to great lengths to reassure us that the concerns were being taken seriously and were being addressed effectively. It is worth reinforcing that great strides have been made in Bulgaria. The country is now a true democracy. Democratic reforms are firm and, in my view, irrevocable. Most of the European acquis communautaire has been implemented in Bulgarian law. Economic growth is consistent. In 2004, for example, the rate was 5.6 per cent. It undoubtedly has a functioning market economy, as the European Commission concluded.
	In fairness, however, it is true to say that over the past few years there was a decline in the momentum towards reform, but since the election of a new Government in June this year, the reform process has gained momentum. A new penal code has been introduced, and there cannot be any doubt that there is a strong political commitment to ensure that the remaining reforms are implemented effectively and speedily.
	The European Commission should give an objective analysis of what is happening in Bulgaria. It is important, both for the interests of both Bulgaria and the EU, that the Commission make a firm assessment. However, there is danger of being too insistent that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed so that things are meticulously in place before Bulgaria can join the EU. In the last wave of accession, a number of countries expressed concern about Slovakia's preparedness to join the EU, given that other accession states had made advances. Nevertheless, the benefit of the doubt was given to Slovakia, and since it joined the EU, it has made remarkable progress. Arguably, it has done so quicker than any other country that joined at the time.
	We should look fairly and objectively at what is happening in Bulgaria, but we must also look at the way in which things are changing before we determine whether a one-year delay would be detrimental to progress in that country or would enhance it. We should be firm but fair. As well as looking at what is happening in Bulgaria and Romania, we must always keep at the back of our mind the centrality of the process of enlargement to Europe's development. A vision of the EU is developing not as a union of elitist or exclusive nation states but as an expanding union always seeking to embrace more countries. That is a positive process.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is move away from elitism, but does he not accept that the problem will not be resolved without radical reform of the system? However, when reforms are proposed, particularly on the acquis communautaire, nothing happens.

Wayne David: It is important to acknowledge that reforms are under way in the EU. Reforms introduced by the Government both before and during their presidency have struck a chord with many EU states, particularly central European countries that have recently joined. There is an increasing acceptance that what we want is not a highly integrated centralised state but a loose association of sovereign countries that pool their interests from time to time.

Peter Bone: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not agree that the EU and states party to the North American Free Trade Agreement should join together to create a transatlantic free trade area?

Wayne David: I said at the outset that this is an extremely broad debate, but extending it to north America takes it a little too far, so I shall resist the temptation to comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
	To return to the central point that I was making in response to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), it is important that we recognise that enlargement is a positive process that reinforces the well-established trend of the EU continuing to develop as a loose association of sovereign countries that decide to pool their sovereignty from time to time in their mutual interest. That is the best definition that I can give off the top of my head of what the EU is developing into, and I believe that enlargement will reinforce that development.
	In conclusion, having visited Bulgaria on many occasions over a number of years, it is my impression that most Bulgarian people take that view. They do not want a giant, centralised European Union that will rob them of their national identity, but they do want to be part of a progressive, forward-looking EU that gives them security both politically and in broader defence issues. That is extremely positive, and it is why I trust that in the near futurehopefully, in January 2007both Romania and Bulgaria will meet the terms of entry and become full members of the European Union.

Nigel Dodds: I, too, intend to be brief. In general, I welcome the enlargement of the European Union, because it will help it to become the loose association to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) referred, and diminish the centralised, unified approach that has characterised it thus far. The Bill is therefore welcome.
	It is important to remember how far countries in the former Soviet sphere of influence have come. Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and parts of the former Soviet Union are now members of the EU, and are party to discussions about the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. That demonstrates how far they have come in recent years, as the Minister said. We welcome that progress, but we accept that there is still much more work to be done in those countries. Leverage can be exerted to reinforce human rights, tackle corruption and improve the judicial process, particularly in Bulgaria and Romania, both in the coming period and for a short time following accession. After that, however, the pressure that can be brought to bear will dissipate rapidly, so a signal should be sent to Romania and Bulgaria that accession is not an automatic process. Genuine progress must be made in a number of areas.
	I should like to focus on human rights, the judicial process and the rule of law in Romania. I sympathise greatly with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who spoke forcefully about her constituent's family. I trust that everything will be done to assist her in her efforts to achieve justice. A church in my constituency that helped to run an orphanage in Romania approached me because it was concerned about child traffickingan issue raised earlier in our short debateand the way in which the Romanian authorities can interfere arbitrarily in children's welfare. Laws on adoption, for instance, are loosely applied. The church has expressed genuine concern about children's welfare and the attitude of the Romanian state towards the subject. In the coming period when, as I said, leverage can be applied, I urge the Minister and the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that such matters are progressed, particularly in relation to human rights and the rule of law. It should not be a question of turning a blind eye to some of these issues for the greater good. We should make Romania and Bulgaria, particularly the Romanian authorities, live up to their responsibilities as part of a wider Europe.

Greg Hands: rose

Alan Haselhurst: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who are unsure that the best way of catching the eye of the Chairman is to rise promptly in one's place?

Greg Hands: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but we have to make a second correction at this point. When the House is in Committee, the forms of address are Mr. Chairman or Sir Alan.

Greg Hands: Thank you, Sir Alan, for correcting me and helping me.
	I shall be brief, as I spoke at some length on Second Reading. We should not underestimate the importance of the accession treaty. Although we are dealing with only two countries this year, whereas last year we were dealing with the accession of 10 nations to the EU, there are some important strategic objectives and changes that need to be borne in mind.For the first time, the EU will reach to the Black sea, and Greece will be connected to the rest of the EU. Romania will have the seventh largest population in the EU, after Spain, Poland and the big four. This is a significant enlargement, not just a tidying-up exercise.
	I agree with other speakers about the changes that have taken place in Bulgaria and Romania over the past 20 years. I first travelled to those countries in the late 1980s as a student. The changes since then, in the space of one generation, are incredibly dramatic and could serve as a model for many other countries seeking to introduce free market economies, democratic systems and so on. It was the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher who first outlined in the Chamber the possible accession of these two countries. The first mention of the possibility of Bulgarian and Romanian accession to the European Union came on 31 January 1990 in a speech made by the then hon. Member for Warwickshire, North, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who said that he was looking forward to seeing various countries join the EU, including Bulgaria and Romania. Accession and enlargement have long been on the Conservative agenda.
	I shall outline some of the problems that we need to bear in mind with the accession. Bulgaria and Romania are not necessarily perfect candidates, but I am not sure that three or four years back, Poland and others were perfect candidates. The first problem is corruption, about which other hon. Members have spoken. It is a problem in Bulgaria more than in Romania. The second is organised crime, mafia-style crime problems and assassinations. Only about four weeks ago in Bulgaria, one of the country's most senior bankers was assassinated. Significant improvements still need to be made on environmental matters in towns such as Ruse and in areas of Transylvania.
	There are problems in relation to minoritiesthe Hungarian community and the Vlach community in Romania, and the Turkish community and Roma community in both countries. Finally, drug and people trafficking will probably always be a problem in those countries, partly due to their geography, as they are situated at the entry point to Europe. Practically every new trafficking problem has come through the Bosphorus and up into Europe over the past century.
	I broadly welcome the Bill. It is important to view it as significant in its own right, not just as a tidying-up exercise. We should congratulate Romania and Bulgaria on their accession. We need to keep an eye on the problems that I and others identified on Second Reading and in Committee, but we should warmly welcome the Bill nevertheless.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Freedom of Movement for Workers

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
	'(1A)   The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report no later than four months before the date of accession on the Government's assessment of the effect the free movement of workers from the acceding States will have.
	(1B)   The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report every six months on the effect of any regulations made on the free movement of workers under this section until the end of the seven year transitional period.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'or transitional'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 18, after 'supplementary', insert 'and'.
	Clause stand part.

Graham Brady: As we come to consider the part of the Bill dealing with the free movement of workers, one of the unintended aspects of free movement of workers applies to the Conservative Benches: my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who was to have dealt with the amendment, has to be in another Committee shortly, so I am moving into her shoesan unwise thought, perhaps.
	Clause 2 and the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, No. 9, relate to an important aspect of the Bill and some of the implications of membership. It is particularly important because of the recent history of the accession of new member states to the EU. Clause 2 represents a welcome acceptance by the Government that their projections of the consequences of the free movement of workers from the accession countries last year were wrong by a significant factor. Whereas they suggested that only a few thousand workers would come to the UK following accession, some 277,000 workers have come under the registration scheme. I accept that that process has gone smoothly and there have been no particular difficulties.
	It is interesting that the Government none the less saw the importance of putting the measures in place in clause 2. As was alluded to by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and Opposition Members, the two accession countries that we are considering today are quite different from many of those that came into the EU last year. The difference in economic strength is much more profound. The provisions that the Government are putting in place and the powers they are seeking to take to control the free movement of workers in that context are wise. It is inevitably possible that, given the marked difference in income between Romania and Bulgaria and the existing member states, especially some of the wealthier member states such as the United Kingdom, there could be significant pressure of migration. It is sensible that the Government should take a precautionary approach regarding the free movement of workers.
	That is particularly important in view of the geographical perspective provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), relating to the routes into Europe that the new accession countries constitute both for people trafficking and for the drugs trade. Bulgaria is known to be a major transit country for illegal drugs, as well as a producer country. It is important and appropriate that the measures should be taken.
	The Government have, however, not yet enlightened the Committee about the outcome of their assessment or analysis, whether they anticipate using the powers in clause 2, and whether they envisage instituting any major control for a transitional period, making use of the available derogations to prevent significant unforeseen movement of people into the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment No. 9, which seeks to introduce some transparency to the process. It would require the Government to lay before Parliament no later than four months before the date of accession a report on the Government's assessment of the effect of the free movement of workers from the acceding states, and it would also require subsequent reports on the actual effect of such movements of workers.
	As I have said, given the marked difference between the predictions about the previous 10 accession countries and the actual number of migrants who have come to the United Kingdom, it seems important and appropriate that the Government should publish a frank and detailed assessment of what they anticipate will happen and provide this House with regular, detailed updates as the accessions move forwards.

Doug Henderson: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has rightly described clause 2 as the provision that will regulate the migration of workers from Romania and Bulgaria to the United Kingdom.
	Many negative things have been said about migration. One does not need to look very far in the tabloid newspapers to see migrants being made the butt of nationalism, jingoism and, from time to time, racism. That is not peculiar to the United Kingdom, although our tabloids might be a little bit more energetic than others in generating public heat on the issue. From time to time, political parties are tempted to crawl down that path. We saw that at the recent general election, when more than one political party referred to immigrationthey probably regret having done so.
	When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe interprets clause 2, he should consider provision in a positive context. The tabloids, to which I have already referred, say that immigration sometimes has to happen and that it is generally negative because we do not want to change our way of life. I do not know what our way of life is in the United Kingdom, and I do not exactly know what our way of life is in Europe. Our way of life is internationalised and we operate in a global world. The movement of people is one of the key features of a global economy and an internationalised society, which is not something newif one reads biblical history, there were lots of movements of people in the period before Christ. If one considers the history of the United States and Canada in the 19th century in particular, there were massive movements of people. From time to time, people have moved into EU countries. In the 1960s, Turkish immigrants into Germany specifically serviced the up-and-coming light engineering industries. In this country, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, we experienced waves of immigration from the Caribbean and elsewhere, again to meet our particular labour needs.
	We live in a different world in which the migration of people is not an exceptionit is the normand people will continue to move more and more. In this country, highly skilled people who are looking for a better opportunity might go to work elsewhere in the EU or the United States. Why should we be different from people from developing countries or people from countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union and that have acceded or will accede to the EU?
	I suspect that we will see ever-increasing migration. It used to be said that the catering industry in London was full of people from all around the world, and particularly from some of the eastern European countries, but that is now true throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. In Scotland and the north-east of England, where I travel fairly regularly, many eastern European people are working in the catering industry.
	In what I call the direct works industryhouse maintenance and, to some extent, house buildingthere is an ever-increasing need to use skilled labour from eastern European countries. An arm's length management organisation runs council housing in Newcastle, and a programme has been agreed between the local authority, which sadly we do not control any more, and central Government.

Menzies Campbell: Why is that?

Doug Henderson: My right hon. and learned Friend and I agree on many things, but not on that.
	The ALMO cannot meet the targets laid down by central Government because of a shortage of labour. We still have some unemployment on Tyneside, although it is less than half what it was in 1997, but we do not have an adequate supply of skilled labour or people who are prepared to train to take up those skills. In the case of the ALMO in Newcastle, we need to train local people as best we can, but we should not be embarrassed if we fail to train sufficient numbers and must look elsewhere to find skilled labour. We can all provide examples from our constituencies of that pattern, which arises across Europe. Germany is now a honey pot for immigrants from a much wider area than Turkey, and the Scandinavian countries and Ireland now contain a large proportion of immigrants, who are meeting vital labour shortages.
	When I ask the Government to be positive in their interpretation of clause 2, my central point is that migration has changed the nature of our economy in the same way as Mexican migrants have changed the American economy. When I studied economics a very long time ago, we referred to overheating in the south and the lack of heat in the norththe main reason why we had to adopt deflationary policies was that the south overheated when the necessary labour was not available. Labour demand shot up wage rates, which had a detrimental effect on the whole economy.
	Migration has enabled a number of countries, including our own, Scandinavian countries and Ireland, to maintain a high level of aggregate demand and to continue to have growth without having wage inflation. Jobs have been filled by people from other parts of Europe, particularly. That is the same pattern throughout the developed world. In that context, migration has been a positive factor in the UK economy. It has not been a negative factor for those who have been left, for instance, in Moldova, Romania or Bulgaria. People working here have been remitting funds to their own countries. That has helped to raise living standards in those countries. Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of Moldova's GNP is the result of remittances from countries in the EU. That is positive for everyone.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman advances a good argument. Does he agree that some of the most skilled people who have been leaving Romania and Bulgaria and coming to this country have done so to the detriment of those economies? That slightly concerns me.

Doug Henderson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I would not deny that in the short term. However, there is the relationship between Ireland and the United States. It could be said that 15 or 20 years ago the immigration of skilled technicians in the IT industry and in other industries to the United States denuded the Irish economy of key workers. Once those people have enjoyed some life in the United States and perhaps picked up other skills, many of their skills have returned to Ireland. For example, some of my wife's family have returned from making their money, so to speak, in the United States. They have come back to Ireland, where they continue to run businesses and so on. The same has happened to some extent already in Poland. Some people have returned to Poland who perhaps have been within the EU for some while. An optimistic prospect is that the same will happen in Romania and Bulgaria.
	I do not want to pretend that it is all easyall sun and light. It is not. Problems arise from international migration. The main benefit is the countering of wage inflation in the developed world. In our case, we should spend more resources on raising the levels of education of those immigrants who come to our nation. They do not all have the skilled to which I have been referring. Some lack skills, and they need to be skilled by us. They need to learn more about our way of life.
	It is impossible ever to prevent people who move from one part of the world to another from staying in close proximity to the people and the culture that they know, and to the friends that they have. People will do that. The Scots, the Geordies and the Irish do that wherever they go in the world, and so will people from Romania, Bulgaria and elsewhere. However, it is vital that they begin to understand the way of life in this country. That is not the way of life that might have been stereotyped in the 1950s. There is a different way of life in Britain in the first decade of the 21st century. People who come to our country have to learn that way of life and help to contribute to change that way of life by the next decade.
	I strongly support the Bill. I anticipate that the Government will be able to accommodate the general points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. We all want to know what is happening and we all need a statistical basis. Please let us interpret clause 2 in a generous and enlightened way. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that he intends to do so when he replies.

Peter Bone: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that all Members will be concerned about one part of the free movement of labour, and that is the dreadful problem of human trafficking, particularly of young women for the sex trade. I am concerned that there is nothing in the Bill that deals with that issue. I am worried that free movement will make it easier for the degenerates who bring young women into this country for the sex trade.

Nia Griffith: The Bill sets out the necessary legislation for the freedom of movement of workers from Romania and Bulgaria. Hand in hand with the Bill, we need to examine carefully what happens when migrant workers come to this country from new EU member states. Many of these workers are enticed here by promises of terms and conditions that sound better in theory than they do in reality. We need particularly to tighten up on the use of zero-hours contracts by agencies, which mean that workers who come here to take up full-time posts can find that sometimes they have so few hours of work in a week that they do not earn enough in that week to pay their rent. We need to improve agency regulation to eliminate sharp practices and ensure a level playing field between agencies that abide by the rules and those who ruthlessly exploit workers. We need to ensure that the increasing use of migrant labour does not undercut our workers and depress wage levels.
	We also need a better transfer of information between all EU member states about dangerous offenders to avoid a repeat of a dreadful incident in which a nasty sexual attack was carried out by a man who had come from eastern Europe to work in my locality. Only afterwards did it became clear that he was a known offender with a previous conviction for rape in his own country. I was horrified to discover from the local chief inspector of police that there is no transfer of information about sex offenders from original or from new EU countries. We must develop a proper unified system of notification of such offenders across the whole of the EU to reassure and protect local people.
	I welcome these new opportunities for migrant workers from Bulgaria and Romania, but we must ensure that we can be proud, not ashamed, of their working conditions.

Greg Hands: I want to speak in favour of the amendment.
	I am in favour of migration in general. My constituency might have more migrants from the 10 countries that acceded last year than any other. We have a vibrant Polish community and we are home to the excellent Polish cultural centre.
	Both parts of the amendment are extremely sensible. The first part would ensure that an assessment takes place no later than four months before the accession. That is not fundamentally different from what happened last year, when the Home Office announced the worker registration scheme on 23 February 2004, in advance of accession. In other words, an assessment was, rightly, made at that time, and the rules were changed slightly. It would be sensible to make an assessment four months in advance to judge what the effects are likely to be based on how the previous accession has gone, and so on.
	The second part of the amendment would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the system. That does not mean that we should review the two countries' membership of the European Union but that we should review worker registration from those two countries over a period of seven years. That is an eminently sensible provision. If we are to have the worker registration scheme, it is sensible to use the data that arise from it to see whether it is working properly. Last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), said:
	The purpose of the scheme is to allow us to track properly our commitment. It will give good information to the authorities and the Home Office about how, in practice, the right to work of people from accession countries is operating.
	She went on:
	We have a good pattern of what is happening, and if, against all expectations, there were adverse impacts on our labour marketslet me reiterate that we do not expect thatwe could act immediately to re-impose restrictions.[Official Report, 2 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 876.]
	The basis of the worker registration scheme was sensible, and we should use the data from it to monitor whether it is working in practice.
	I do not say that because I believe that a flood of people will come in from Bulgaria and Romania. I think that a healthy number of people will come to this country bringing very useful skills. However, it would set a good precedent to do this now for the purposes of future EU accession. If, say, Turkey or Russia become EU accession countries, there may be genuine concerns about a very large number of people coming into this country and distorting our labour market. It would be useful to have a precedent in place to ensure that Parliament assesses the likely impact of the accession four months beforehand and then monitors the actual impact every six months for seven years. It is better to set that in stone in 2005 rather than some point in the future when large countries may join the EU.
	The amendment is sensible and I hope that the Government will support it. It ensures extra parliamentary scrutiny, which is always a good thing.

Andy Burnham: I thank colleagues from all parties who have made helpful and welcome comments about clause 2. It is encouraging that there is such broadly-based support for the measures that we want to introduce. I shall deal with the detail of the amendment and make some general points about the clause.
	Let me briefly comment on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on clause 1. She made a powerful speech, the force of which will carry further than the House and especially to anyone who is watching our proceedings. As a dedicated Everton supporter, I emphasise that rivalries are put aside in such cases. She knows that the solidarity between football supporters in our city runs deep and our thoughts are with her. She will have the solidarity of football supporters everywhere and I wish her well in her campaign. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary leads on such matters. Through me, he would like to reiterate the offer of a further meeting with her and the family to ascertain whether we can make some progress.
	Clause 2 is consistent with the Government's managed migration agenda, which makes decisions on the UK's labour market dependent on the number and type of gaps that exist. The clause provides enabling powers, which will allow the Government to set the terms on which any access will be granted to Bulgarian and Romanian workers after accession during a transition period. That can range from maintaining a form of the current work permit arrangements to full, free access to the market, including a version of the worker registration scheme that is in place for nationals of the eight accession countries. A decision will be made closer to the accession date. I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) but I hope that he understands that it is right to make the decision when we know more about the date of accession for the two countries.
	We would also like to take other considerations into account, such as the state of the domestic labour market and other member states' decisions about access to their labour markets. Of course, all member states have to go through the same process as us. We will also take account of further analysis of our experience with the first round of accessions.

Peter Bone: Why do we have to wait to find out what our European Union partners do before we make our decision?

Andy Burnham: We do not. The decision is in our hands, but it is sensible to ascertain what other countries are planning to do before taking a unilateral decision. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that, with Sweden and the Republic of Ireland, we made a different decision from that of our partners about the eight accession countries. Nevertheless, the views of our partners have a bearing on the overall decision and they are a factor that we need to take into account.
	The strength of the clause, which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) acknowledgedI thank him for thatis that it enables us to keep our options open and make a decision that balances all the factors that I outlined. We believe that that is the right response, because it affords the Government the flexibility that we need with the approval of Parliament.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Under-Secretary help us about numbers? What is the estimated number of workers from Bulgaria and Romania who are likely to want to come to the United Kingdom to work?

Andy Burnham: That is precisely one of the factors that we would seek to ascertain in the run-up to accession, which is why it is premature to make any firm commitments about the situation. When we know that there is a firm date of accession, we must take a view, considering the effect on the UK labour market in particular. Obviously, that is a predominant concern in making any decision. I will deal with this in more detail when I speak about the amendment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will seek to back up any decision with strong research on precisely that question.
	Reference has been made to previous underestimates. I should say that the figures before the previous accession related to people seeking permanent settlement, and not necessarily to people who had joined the worker registration scheme. The comparison might not therefore be completely accurate. Nevertheless, 293,000 people have come in to date. We believe that that has only added to the UK labour market.

Graham Brady: It is my understanding that the existing worker registration scheme does not include the self-employed. Would he consider introducing such a provision, either for existing new member states or the two new accession countries? Do the Government have any estimate of how many self-employed workers there are in addition to the 293,000 who have registered to date?

Andy Burnham: There are such figures. I do not have them immediately to hand, but I can certainly make them available to the hon. Gentleman. Nationals of Romania and Bulgaria are, of course, also registered to work here legally as self-employed persons running their own businesses.
	We believe that it is the right approach, with the approval of Parliament, to judge the decision in response to circumstances at the time of accession, whether that be 1 January 2007 or 2008. Furthermore, we believe that a decision now on what level of access to grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers on accession would clearly be premature and not take into account the relevant factors that I mentioned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made a helpful contribution, in which he urged me and other Home Office Ministers to consider the positive side of migration, and to take a positive view of the measures before the House. He is right to put it in that way, as we should conduct this debate positively. If some of the newspaper headlines at the time were to be believed, the world was going to end the day after the last round of enlargement. Of course, that did not happen. As he rightly pointed out, a story is run in parts of the media that migration is wholly bad, or is to be tolerated at the edges for bringing a marginal benefit. He is right to take those arguments head-on, and the Government should do so. As he said, the experience of opening our labour markets and allowing greater access than do some other European countries has been good for the UK economy, and for the regional economies of this country.
	I would wager a lot of money that those 293,000 people have put far more into this country than they have taken out. As the figures show, there has been very little recourse to in-work benefits and other social security support. Their contribution is therefore huge. They are filling gaps in our labour market and performing a vital role. I accept my hon. Friend's basic point that our precise decision must be guided at the time by relevant factors such as those that I have laid out. I agree, however, that our earlier decision has been good for business and the regional economies of this country, and for our standing in the European Union, particularly among the 10 member states that we are talking about today.
	I want to run through some of the structure of the clause before turning to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. Subsections (1) and (2) allow regulations to be made that will grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers the rights of European economic area nationals to enter and work in the UK. Subsections (3) and (4) provide for the implementation of a possible compulsory registration scheme. Subsection (5) provides for supplementary or transitional measures which may be required, for example, to move Bulgarian and Romanian nationals currently in the UK under a work permit scheme to a future registration scheme. It also allows for the regulations to make different provision for different cases. They could, for instance, distinguish between Bulgarian and Romanian workers, or indeed between plumbers and doctors. That relates to some of the information sought by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West a moment ago, which I shall try to provide for him.
	Subsection (5) relates to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I am relieved that he is not here to speak to it, as it was entirely pointless, and the Committee will not now be delayed by unnecessary debate on it.
	Let me correct a popular misconception about the free movement of persons within the EU. That right exists outside clause 2, and it is important for that to be made clear. Free movement is a fundamental principle of the European Union. Under the accession treaty, nationals of Bulgaria and Romania will have the right to enter and reside in all the existing member states for a wide variety of purposes, including holidays, study, retirement and indeed business activity. That was agreed unanimously by the 25 current member states.
	The transitional measures allowed by the treaty relate solely to the free movement of workers. Nationals of Bulgaria and Romania affected by the measures will not automatically be allowed to enter and reside in the 25 EU member countries for the purpose of employment, but they will be able to do so for the other purposes to which I referred.
	For those reasons, the transitional periods are limited in scope. They are also limited in time. All the measures for which clause 2 provides will be relevant for a maximum of seven years after accession. Free movement for workers across the Union remains the medium-term objective, and it is essential for the efficient functioning of the single market. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made that point.
	That is why the accession treaty requires the Council to conduct a review of restrictions on access to workers about two years after accession. Indeed, we are close to the date for the review of restrictions imposed on new member states in May 2004. The Government will communicate their decision on any further arrangements in spring next year. It is likely that, following the review, several more of the 15 EU member states will join the UK, Sweden and Ireland in allowing full access to their labour markets. That will be a positive development for them.
	As I have said, our experience of enlargement has been extremely positive. Most of the workers who have travelled to the UK since May 2004 are young and have taken jobs throughout the country that have been left vacant. They have been employed in a broad range of industries, from health care to business administration to farmingindustries in which there are serious gaps. They are contributing to our economic growth and to our tax revenues. It seems that many young people are coming for short periods to find out what living in this country is like, and then going back. That can only be a positive development, and I believe that it will benefit both countries in the long term.

Graham Brady: Does the Minister share the view expressedI thinkby the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) that one effect of the arrival of a large number of young migrant workers has been the depression of UK wage rates?

Andy Burnham: All those working under the worker registration scheme have full employment protection and full access to the national minimum wage. There is no difference between a British worker and another EU national in that respect. As these workers are filling gaps in the labour market, I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He probably speaks to the CBI often, and I expect he is aware that it strongly supports these measures. I suspect that it will continue to do so.
	I believe that amendment No. 9 is premature. It asks us to include a requirement for a report on the effect of the free movement of workers from the acceding states. Actually, it assumes that we have taken the decision to allow that. However, as I have explained, that decision has not yet been taken, so building such a commitment into the Bill is premature.
	I hope to offer the hon. Gentleman some assurances that we can meet the effect of the amendment, so that it will not be necessary for him to press it. For example, as I have already mentioned, we undertake to carry out research into the potential effects of opening access to the UK labour market before a decision is taken to do so, and we would of course share that information with the House. We will continue to monitor the position and, should the decision be taken to open access to our labour markets, he will know that regulations would create the basis for any transitional arrangements. He will also know that those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would be an opportunity to give them full parliamentary scrutiny. That also meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham: parliamentary scrutiny is guaranteed under clause 2. I can also give a commitment to laying as much research as possible before the House in order to have a fully informed debate on the effect of the regulations. The amendment, which would place a rigid requirement directly in the Bill, is therefore unnecessary.

Graham Brady: The Minister is being very helpful and I am grateful. Can he be just a little more helpful by undertaking to publish regular analyses to update the position following accession?

Andy Burnham: I certainly will. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since we set up the worker registration scheme, the Home Office, together with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments, is monitoring the effect on the labour market by analysing the figures relating to that scheme. In respect of A8 nationals, the statistics are published on a quarterly basis via the accession monitoring report and the latest figures were issued this week. I hope that I have persuaded him that his amendment is unnecessary as we fully intend to continue the arrangements whereby regular quarterly reports are made available. The whole point of the scheme is to enable us to track and monitor the effect on the labour market and on the take-up of social security benefits. As I say, we will want to share such information with the House as much as possible.
	I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made an important point about human trafficking. The Home Office wholly concurs in emphasising the importance of making progress in that respect. As part of our presidency of the EU, we have given considerable priority to that matter and we have sought to make concrete progress in that regard. Work is being carried out by Europol and others, particularly with respect to Romania. We most certainly are focused on dealing with that matter, though the Bill does not include direct provisions relating to it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) raised an important point about the potentially criminal behaviour of people in the worker registration scheme. She mentioned a case from her constituency and I assure her that such people, if they were imprudent enough to commit offences during their stay here, would be subject to the full force of the UK criminal justice system. Powers remain at the disposal of the Home Office to deal with European nationals in respect of removal where criminal behaviour is involved. The main point is that the full force of British law will apply. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
	We have had a good and encouraging debate. It is pleasing to see the Conservative party coming round to acknowledging the benefits of managed and legal migration to this country. I hope that that will continue to be the position held by Conservative Members in the months ahead. I urge the House to reject amendment No. 9 and to approve clause 2.

Graham Brady: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had a good afternoon's debate, with stimulating and thoughtful contributions from all parts of the House. Let me begin, as I did on Second Reading, by paying heartfelt and genuine tribute to the all-party nature of the consensus in this debate at every stage of the Bill's passage. I welcome the strong and powerful arguments that we have heard in support of enlargement, and in particular of Romania's and Bulgaria's accession. It is clear that all Members recognise the important role that enlargement has already played in developing the prosperous and stable Europe in which we live today. Romania's and Bulgaria's accession will further contribute to political stability and security in our neighbourhood, and create new economic opportunities for British citizens and companies.
	As we have discussed, it is clear that there are a number of areas in which more work is needed if Romania and Bulgaria are to be ready for European Union membership in 2007. The Commission's comprehensive monitoring report, which was published in Octoberit has been the subject of debate already this afternoonset out a range of issues in the fields of justice and home affairs, agriculture, environment and administrative capacity that require urgent attention. I know that this was a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), and I can assure him and the House that we are working closely with both Governments to help them to implement these   outstanding commitments. In recent meetings with both countries' Europe Ministers, I underlined the importance of tackling the remaining problems. I am pleased to say that both expressed a real commitment to implementing the necessary reforms, and they set out a number of areas where progress is already being made.
	This Third Reading is an important and historic moment. The Bill may be small, but its impact will be substantial. For 30 million people, European Union accession represents a new dawn and the final step in a difficult journey from dictatorship to democracy. The impact of accession will not, of course, be limited to Romania and Bulgaria; their accession will bring benefits to all of Europe. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that the United Kingdom looks forward to welcoming Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.

Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the Minister in what has been, as he said, a helpful and constructive series of debates on the Bill. There is broad cross-party agreement on the objective of bringing Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union, without for a moment belittling the great difficulties that remain and that need to be overcome. The Minister acknowledges that there is a serious programme of work to be undertaken in the coming months to get those countries to the point where they may be ready for accession.
	We have had some very useful contributions to this debate, including a helpful one from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). He gave us some assistance, thereby enabling us to withdraw our amendment on the free movement of workers. My hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) rightly raised some very important points about people trafficking and the scandal of such abuse.
	I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has returned to his place. He was quite right to raise some of the more profound issues to do with the future shape and direction of the EU as a whole and the type of EU that Romania and Bulgaria might join. In not too many years' time, other countries such as Turkey and Croatia will become members, and even Russia may do so one day, although that may take a little longer.
	The Opposition are pleased to welcome the progress being made on enlargement, both with this Bill and with the beginning of the accession talks for Turkey and Croatia. Our proceedings have been very consensual so far, so I cannot resist saying that it looks increasingly as though the steps to enlargement may be the only achievements of the UK's EU presidency. This week, Foreign Ministers from various member states have commented on the discussions about the future EU budget. For example, the Finnish Foreign Minister said:
	As there is nothing new to discuss, I have got nothing new to say,
	while the Belgian Foreign Minister said:
	We are sitting here wasting our time,
	and the Portuguese Foreign Minister said:
	They have done nothing about the financial prospects . . . We are not going to get any numbers today, just words.
	I am pleased to restore a little contention and rancour to our debate, as we do not like to have too much uninterrupted consensus in our proceedings. However, it is fortunate that we have something to show for the UK presidency, especially in respect of the more difficult talks about Turkey, and I have given the Minister and his colleagues credit for that before. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania should bring both countries great benefits, as it will ultimately to all member states.
	Enlargement is hugely important, both for the progress that it brings in the candidate countries and for what it does to aid the development of a more diverse and flexible EU. Recent discussions about the future EU budget have sometimes given the unfortunate impression that the whole point of membership for some of the newer members and applicant countries is to obtain grants and cash transfers from the EU or the wealthier members. That is entirely wrong, as it leads to the absurd proposition that has been raised this weekthat the new members are paying for the UK rebate. Given that the UK is a major net contributor to the UK, that is clearly nonsense.
	Yet we must stress that the real value of EU membership for Bulgaria, Romania and the others that have joined recently is that it will reinforce their freedom, democracy, security and rule of law. It will also ensure their access to a single market, and we hope that that can be achieved in a way that is not overly bureaucratic or regulated.
	The Conservative party has always been an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement, whether that has involved the 10 states that joined last year, or Bulgaria and Romania, or Turkey and Croatia. We very much support the proposed accession that we have debated this afternoon, but the Minister knows well that the path to membership for Romania and Bulgaria will not be easy. The enthusiasm for the objective behind the Bill is shared by all parties, but that should not lead the Government or the EU to proceed uncritically in their assessments of the readiness of the two applicant countries for entry in 2007 or 2008.
	I believe that the Minister accepts the importance of bringing Romania and Bulgaria into the EU, but I hope that he is also aware that it is vital that we get it right.

Nicholas Clegg: I should also like to join in this festival of cross-party consensus, which I trust will be a rare, if valuable occasion. It underlines the importance of this positive step not only for Romania and Bulgaria but for the European Union as a whole. I join others in reminding the House that the vision of an ever-wider and more diverse EU has for a long time been a particularly British vision of the European Union and before it the European Community, which has united political opinion across parties for a long time. It is good to see that that fundamental view has held true here today. It is not a view that is shared in other parts of the EU. I doubt that in Paris one would find quite the same amount of cross-party consensus on this latest step in the journey of EU enlargement. It remains an expression of great strategic vision on the part of Britain as a whole that we have prosecuted this process as successfully as we have.
	Some important points have been made during the consideration of the Bill about the final steps of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU and the absolute need for real rigour in ensuring that the outstanding measures that need to be taken in those two countries are taken and that the safeguard measures are used in all seriousness and not merely as a fig leaf for enlargement and accession at all costs. That concern about the final stages of accession should not be viewed as some last-minute series of obstacles to their rightful claim to join the EU. It is born of a serious belief that if further enlargements are to occur in a politically, economically and socially sustainable way in the decades ahead, we must set the right precedent today.

Peter Bone: I was disappointed that the Bill was not amended in Committee, but I was grateful for the comments made by both Ministers. I broadly welcome the Bill. Enlargement of the European Union is good for everyone. The larger the single market, the more prosperous its peoples become. Clearly, the addition of 30 million consumers from Bulgaria and Romania is to be welcomed. It is an added bonus that we are bringing in people who have been freed from the tyranny of communism. I would go on to argue for the enlargement of the EU to such an extent that it joins with the North   American Free Trade Agreement to create a transatlantic free trade area, which would create a huge market and be of enormous benefit to its peoples. In this regard, we should welcome and encourage Romania and Bulgaria into the EU.
	I have concerns on two fronts. One is the process of Bulgaria and Romania's accession. The other is the effects on the UK of these countries joining the European Union. Bulgaria and Romania are two countries that are only now emerging from the throes of Soviet domination. The defeat of communism in those countries and the creation of freedom and democracy were of course championed by Baroness Thatcher and her Conservative Governments. The two countries are now entering into the most fundamental change since the fall of communism. However, one of the great freedoms that the people of Bulgaria and Romania have gained from the fall of communism is the right to determine their own affairs and to vote on issues that affect their lives. Yet the Bulgarian and Romanian people have not been given the chance to vote on this fundamental change. That shows the ultimate failing of the system and highlights how undemocratic the process of EU accession is.
	The EU can demand all sorts of regulations and laws and practices, but the one thing that it does not demand is that the people of the countries acceding to it have a choice in whether they want to be part of the EU. Is that because the EU fears the verdict of the people? Has it not learned from the fiasco of the European constitution? Should it not be a condition that every country that wants to join the EU should hold a referendum?
	As the citizens of those two countries have not been given the chance to vote on whether they want to be part of the EU we have only the views expressed in opinion polls to show the strength of opposition to accession. Every second person surveyed in Bulgaria was concerned that their country would have to contribute more than it would receive from the EU budget. More than half of those surveyed in Bulgaria feared that accession would create difficulties for the country's farmers. In a survey commissioned by the delegation of the European Commission in Romania, 56 per cent. of Romanians believed that accession would bring more drawbacks than advantages in the short term.
	The Minister may rightly point out that no such referendum was held in the United Kingdom. One sunny morning, I woke up and the people of the United Kingdom found that they were no longer in the European Community but in the European Union. The people of Britain were never given the chance to say whether they wanted to be in the EU. They were never asked whether they wanted to be in a European superstate, with its own Parliament, its own President, its own flag and its own Court, all of which is costing billions of pounds a year and represents a significant loss of British sovereignty. However, that strengthens the argument that Bulgarians and Romanians should have the right to a referendum. The citizens of those accession countries are denied a fundamental democratic choice.
	My second concern is that the Government have not made clear what restrictions, if any, will be imposed on the accession countries with regard to free movement to the UK, notwithstanding the Minister's earlier comments. The Government's prediction of immigration from the 10 accession countries fell severely short of the actual figure. Surely, they need to outline the restrictions they will impose on the two accession countries before it is too late, because it could be little more than a year before Romania and Bulgaria are admitted to the EU and I do not see why we should have to wait to hear what our partners say about the issue before we make our decision.
	It is not unreasonable to ask for details about the restrictions that will be imposed on the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania. There are no details in the Bill about whether people coming to the UK from Bulgaria and Romania will automatically be entitled to benefit. Will they be entitled to housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance or incapacity benefit and if so, when? The Bill does not answer those questions.
	Many of my constituents are concerned that migrants from eastern Europe are automatically entitled to benefits. I am not making that point to produce headlines; in fact, it is the reverse. It can be argued that migration has not significantly increased the number of people on benefit, but because it is not clear in the Bill what the restrictions might be, we may attract headlines when Bulgaria and Romania accede.
	My greatest concern about free movement, which is shared by all Members, is that human trafficking will be made easier under the Bill. I am particularly concerned about the hideous trafficking of young women in the sex trade. Young women from eastern Europe are promised a new life with legitimate employment and opportunities in the UK, but they finish up as sex slaves sold from one degenerate to another. They are subject to the most appalling violence and intimidation, which goes as far as telling them that back home, perhaps in Bulgaria or Romania, their child will be killed if they do not continue to serve as sex slaves. That is worse than the intimidation and violence suffered by slaves in the 19th century. Will the Government bear that outrageous and disgraceful trafficking in mind when drawing up regulations for work permits?
	Before Romania and Bulgaria become part of the EU, they should toughen up regimes in their countries to stop human trafficking. That should be a crucial condition of their accession.
	I hope that the Government will take those points on board, and that my speech has been constructive and not party political.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

RIGHTS OF SAVERS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Rights of Savers Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under the Act; and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.[Mr. Timms.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Investigatory Powers

That the draft Retention of Communications Data (Further Extension of Initial Period) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.[Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to.

ESSENTIAL DRUGS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Kevin Brennan.]

Iris Robinson: I want to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the availability of life-altering and, sometimes, life-saving drugs and to reiterate the fact that the Government must take the lead on the issue and not simply offload responsibility for it on to health boards in Northern Ireland.
	The mailbag to my constituency office is dominated by health queries, and one of the most common problems is access to essential medications. I acknowledge the extra funding that the Minister has announced recently for high-cost medications, but I want to know how much of that is genuinely new money. Perhaps the Minister can detail that during his remarks.
	Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence does not extend to Northern Ireland. However, I understand that the Minister has given consideration to the matter, and perhaps he will take this opportunity to detail the latest position. In Northern Ireland, patients do not have the luxury of NICE guidelines to ensure that they receive critical treatments. The health boards can allocate their budgets as they please and can choose not to spend money on any of those essential drugs if they so desire. The Minister must give clear direction on access to those drugs.
	Herceptin has gained significant press coverage in the Province during the past few weeks, particularly in relation to whether it can be used in the treatment of early breast cancer. An aggressive media campaign has been waged and concerned patients have threatened legal action. Those waiting for other drugs now fear that they may suffer as Herceptin is now provided to those who need it. Can the Minister guarantee that those with other cancer conditions will not suffer as a result of the funding for Herceptin?
	In relation to multiple sclerosis, for example, a young woman who works in the health service has written to me. She has suffered pain and loss of feeling in her limbs and developed visual anomalies. She will not be able to obtain an MRI scan to confirm her diagnosis until the middle of next year. Only after that scan can her neurologist add her to the waiting list for beta interferon, and another long wait will commence.
	That young woman is currently off work. She wants to work and realises that, if she remains off work and requires state benefits, her condition will end up costing society a great deal more than early treatment would have done. She feels that the provision that she is receiving is simply not good enough. Like many others who are in a similar position, she wonders what the point is of paying taxes and contributing for years to the public purse.
	Unfortunately, the funding for MS drugs, such as beta interferon and glatiramer, have not improved and the waiting lists are increasing, both in terms of the number of people on the lists and the time that they are forced to wait. At the end of October 2005, 156 people were on the waiting list for disease-modifying therapies. The imbalance in numbers on the waiting lists from board to board raises fears of another postcode lottery for treatment if funds become available.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Is she aware that people face the same problems in not only Northern Ireland, but places such as Wellingborough?

Iris Robinson: I have absolutely no doubt about that. However, investigations by outsiders have indicated that we in Northern Ireland get 20 per cent. less for health care per head of population by comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman should also bear it in mind that some conditions are caused by stress and mental illness due to 35 years of ongoing terrorism. I hope that he can put the matter in perspective and appreciate that we have a greater need because of all the terrorist activity that we have come through.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I commend my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Democratic Unionist Members admire her work to highlight in the local media the problem in Northern Ireland. Does she agree that many illnesses that require specialist treatment are stress-related? There is evidence to link the higher incidence of stress-related illnesses in Northern Ireland to the troubles, so we must think about the necessary funding to help people there, who are coming out of a traumatic situation. The Government must think about the problem in that context, rather than considering simply funding under the traditional methods used in the national health service.

Iris Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. Having spoken to several psychiatrists in Northern Ireland, I totally concur with his views. One of the Cinderella-type structures in Northern Ireland is the mental health service. I intend to raise the question of mental health services and what is available in a future debate, because the situation is intolerable and unacceptable. Children have to go into adult units, although that is detrimental to them and certainly does not enable them to move on and progress as we would like them to.
	Let me go back to what I was saying before I took interventions so that I can make my point. The imbalance in the number of people on waiting lists from board to board raises fears that there will be another postcode lottery for treatment if funds become available. That is because in 200405, one person in each board each month was given treatment. Surely that is a ludicrous means of distributing life-altering therapies in this day and age.
	Even if NICE guidelines are eventually adopted in the Province, those whose treatment is currently being delayed might not fit the guidelines when funding becomes available due to the inevitable progression of their conditions. The psychological effect of being told that a treatment will help one's quality of life, but then learning that it is not available for funding reasons, is totally immeasurable in human terms. An increasing number of people are being recommended for treatment by their neurologist, but are informed in the next breath that it might be two years before they can commence treatment because there is no money to fund it.
	To highlight the impact on individuals involved, I want to read from a letter that arrived in my office earlier this week. It was written by a lady from Killinchy, which is in my Strangford constituency. I will quote the letter in full, so please ignore all the nice things that she says and do not think that I am being conceited.
	The letter says:
	I am writing to you to plead with you to please put forward a very strong case for the desperate need for Betaferon for MS patients in Northern Ireland. We desperately need more funding for Betaferon as it is the only specific drug available for patients suffering from this dreadful debilitating disease, in that it will help to slow down the progression of their symptoms. I was told yesterday, by Dr. Hawkins when I saw him for my appointment at the City Hospital, that I no longer have remitting relapsing MS, but have now got secondary progressive MS. Even though I have been suspecting this for quite a while myself, it still came as an awful shock when it was actually confirmed. Of course it causes all kinds of emotions to run through your mind. I was very tearful when first toldit was almost like being told your original diagnosis all over again. I was suddenly very frightened all over again, having got used to learning to live with it and learning to cope with the fact that everything is just starting to slow downnow having to fear that I am definitely just going to get progressively worse. I was a nurse, and so this probably sounds very naive, but it's incredible how much your mind can block out when you're in self-denial. When I was told that I met the criteria for Betaferon, it at least seemed like a light at the end of the tunneluntilI was told that there was a long waiting list, and it would be quite some time before I would be able to get the drug that I so desperately needed now. The MS nurse that I saw was loathe to put a time scale on it.
	Unless by some chance extra funding was released specifically for beta interferon, that would be the case and she might pass the date when the drug could help her.
	The letter continued:
	Please, please, please could you make an appeal to the government on behalf of all the people, whose lives would be made that bit more tolerable, if they could just be given the drugs that would ease their suffering and make their disease a bit more bearable and a bit more under control.
	I know that you do a lot of work for the MS Society and I thank you for that, but I am still begging you to do that little bit more by putting forward our case to the Government.
	How does the Minister respond to such a cry for help? That letter shows the strength of feeling and emotions experienced by patients awaiting disease modifying therapies.
	Also within the past few days, another lady from Belfast wrote to me saying:
	I am 49 years of age, married with one daughter. I am writing to you as I have been informed by numerous people of the excellent work you have done in fighting on the side of multiple sclerosis sufferers. In April this year I was diagnosed with MS, which devastated both myself and my family, but I am determined to fight the disease in every way that I can. As I'm sure you know, the most effective treatment for MS is Interferon, which was prescribed by Dr Watt, the consultant neurologist in the Royal Victoria Hospital, but I was told that I would be placed on a waiting list as the Eastern Health Board had no funds to meet the cost of this treatment for approximately two years. I now purchase this drug privately, at a cost of 687.85 every four weeks, which is financially devastating to my family and I don't know how long I am going to be able to keep on funding this medication, which I have to tell you that I do feel the benefit of.
	I have read with great interest the statement made by the Minister of Health . . . regarding the 14 million being made available for the purchase of drugs over the next two years. I feel that the case of Interferon for MS sufferers should be impressed on the
	Minister and the Eastern health and social services board, under whose jurisdiction this lady falls.
	The letter continues:
	Interferon is the treatment to give hope of quality of life to fellow MS sufferers like myself. I can't believe that I have been put through all this just so the health authority can balance the books. Human life cannot and should not be measured in pounds. Like many other sufferers I'm scared of what the future may hold.
	Those are very moving and challenging remarks, as I am sure we would all agree.

Nigel Dodds: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) not only for securing the debate and raising this important subject, but for her work on health matters in Northern Ireland, which is widely respected and admired.
	Many hon. Members could also refer to letters that they have received that tell a terrible tale of emotional stress and anxiety caused by denying people the treatment to which they are entitled. That also imposes guilt on family members who cannot contribute to the private purchase of those medicines, as they may feel that they are letting their loved ones down. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that important factor.

Iris Robinson: I concur with my colleague. If the lady whose case I raised does not receive the appropriate drugs she may face the inevitability of selling her home and going into public sector accommodation. In this day and age, it is an utter disgrace that families should be put under such strain to obtain appropriate care for their loved ones.
	The situation for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers is no better than it is for people with multiple sclerosis. Waiting times in Northern Ireland for anti-TNF medications such as Enbrel and Remicade are four times longer than they are in England, and are much worse than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom or Europe. Rheumatology provision in the Province is much worse than in Great Britain. The recent strategic review of rheumatology services in Northern Ireland called for root and branch modernisation. We have the lowest number of rheumatologists per head of population in Europe, and we need more consultant rheumatologists, specialist nurses and allied health professionals. We also need a properly resourced paediatric rheumatology service, because young people with juvenile arthritis currently have to wait four months for a first appointment. We need an appropriate paediatric rheumatology service with a lead consultant and a paediatric rheumatology nurse specialist.
	We deserve parity with other UK regions in the provision of anti-TNF therapies. More than 440 people in Northern Ireland will have to wait more than two years for Enbrel or Remicade, while their condition worsens all the time. More than two thirds of consultant rheumatologists in England and Wales are satisfied that they can prescribe those drugs when necessary, yet on 31 October, at Musgrave Park hospital in Belfast alone, there were 365 people on the waiting list for anti-TNF drugs, 62 of whom have been waiting more than two years. Money that hospitals were led to believe would be made available this financial year has not materialised. The message from the Department is that there will be a generous allocation in the next financial year, but those hospitals were given to believe that that would be the case this year. Arthritis sufferers fear that the publicity over the breast cancer drug Herceptin will result in treatments such as anti-TNF medications losing out. As I said earlier, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the 14 million of additional money that was provided in the recent announcement will aid the availability of those drugs.
	A rheumatologist recently commented:
	I'm afraid we are getting pretty despondent again about this. The Boards were due to receive the Department's response to their Health and Wellbeing Improvement Plans about a month ago (which included additional allocations for high-cost drugs) but we haven't heard anything from them, and there are rumours that we may not get any additional anti-TNF funding this year. This is despite the fact that our anti-TNF waiting list now stands at well over 2 years. Indeed, we were led to believe that we would be getting additional funds in the current financial year to treat well over 50 new patients in Musgrave Park Hospital alone.
	Velcade is another drug for which there is great demand across the Province. It is the only new licensed treatment for multiple myeloma in the past 10 years, but patients in Northern Ireland cannot gain access to it, even though patients in Scotland, Wales and England can. Velcade offers both increased life expectancy and improved quality of life for patients with myeloma, who would otherwise face a terminal decline in their condition. Myeloma receives much less attention than other more notable cancers, but is a far bigger killer than both testicular and cervical cancer. Survival rates for myeloma patients have not improved in the past 10 years, with only 23 per cent. of patients living for more than five years.
	In Northern Ireland a very small number of patients would be suitable for Velcade. The cost would not be great, but the difference that it could make to the patient's quality of life and life expectancy would be immense. Velcade is a licensed drug. The decision to prescribe in Northern Ireland is not dependent on any assessment authority. Denying myeloma patients the treatment is a purely financial decision. Every year in Northern Ireland between 85 and 120 people are newly diagnosed with the disease. In 2003, 63 people died of it, including one young person in their 30s.
	Velcade is prescribed for patients who have received at least two prior treatments and whose condition is worsening. It is undergoing trials as a second-line treatment, owing to the success seen in its current use. It has been appraised by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and the All Wales Medicine Strategy Group. It is funded and available on the national health service in Scotland and in Wales. Although universal access to Velcade is not expected in England until NICE produces guidelines, a number of trusts already prescribe the drug. Clinicians are free to make a clinical judgment to prescribe unappraised drugs such as Velcade. Indeed, Department of Health circular 99/176 makes that clear to all primary care trusts.
	In Northern Ireland, funds for Velcade have not been made available because of the withdrawal of contingency funds to health boards, despite the fact that Belfast City hospital is the location for clinical trials for the treatment. Clinical trials for Velcade carried out in Northern Ireland were so promising that one trial was halted early to ensure that as many people as possible received the treatment. It is extraordinary, therefore, that the place where so much effort was put into testing the drug is the one UK region where it is not available. Many patients are left to wonder what the point is in conducting all that multimillion pound research, only to find that afterwards there is no money to fund the treatment.
	Another drug on which I have been lobbied is Teriparitide for the treatment of established osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. I understand that boards have not identified funding for it in the current financial year. Is this another drug that the Minister had in mind when he announced extra funding for drugs in Northern Ireland?
	Are the boards free to allocate the recent extra funding for drugs as they wish, or are there restrictions on which medications can be included? Can the Minister assure us that he will make the availability of essential drugs a priority in the Province, and that the Department will take responsibility for ensuring that there is adequate provision across Northern Ireland?

Shaun Woodward: I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) on securing the debate on access to essential drugs in Northern Ireland. She is indeed a doughty champion, as I know from my own postbag. She passes on the letters of every constituent who writes to her and raises many of these matters in written questions. I am well aware that few MPs could claim to have such a proud record as she has in taking up the health needs of her constituents.
	The hon. Lady asked me to make a number of guarantees, and she will understand that I may resist making them as guarantees. However, one of the questions that she posed was from a constituent, who asked, What is the point of paying all my taxes? Well, the fact of the matter is that health spending in the current year in Northern Ireland will exceed 3.5 billion. For the next two years, I have secured an additional 450 million for the health service, which is 50 million more than the previous budget. I recognise that even that sum of money, which matches the best figures in England, is not enough in Northern Ireland. In that context, I announced major reforms to the health service this week in order to find more efficiencies and put that money into front-line services.
	Of the 3.5 billion that we will spend this year in Northern Ireland, some 400 million will be spent on prescribed medicines. The majority, 340 million, will relate to GP prescriptions, while the balance, some 60 million, will be spent in the hospital sector. Those costs represent only a proportion of the total cost of treating a patient with a particular drug. For specialist drugs, many of which the hon. Lady has mentioned this afternoon, there are also additional costs associated with the infrastructure required for the administration of the drugs.
	Today, people are living longer. With our ageing population, we should expect more age-related chronic diseases and higher levels of drug prescription. At the same time, patient expectations are increasing, and rightly so. Patients and their families are rightly much more aware of the treatments available andagain, quite rightlythey expect to receive the latest and best drug treatments for their particular condition.
	Hon. Members will be aware of the recent report by Professor Appleby. One of the issues that it considers is the potential for greater use of generic medicines in Northern Ireland. He estimates that there would be savings of some 55 million a year, if Northern Ireland's use of generic medicines were as good as the practice in England. That 55 million is effectively being wasted in Northern Ireland because of prescribing habits, which must change. I am determined that my Department will pursue these changes in order to put that money into front-line health services.
	New and revolutionary specialist drug treatments are emerging all the time. In some cases, new drug products have been developed; in others, new ways have been found to use existing drugs more effectively and for new conditions. All that is good news for patients, since better treatments are now available to cure or control the symptoms of a range of severe conditions. Improvements in drug treatments may also reduce the number of hospital admissions that patients require.
	It is essential when new drugs are introduced that we continue to monitor all the available evidence in relation to their safety and effectiveness. Sometimes that will account for why we delay the introduction of some drugs. Although most drugs will prove to be effective, some medicines, despite their initial promise, may be shown to be not so effective or, indeed, they may subsequently be found to be unsafe. In those circumstances, difficult decisions will need to be taken, and the drugs may need to be withdrawn.
	One very recent example of a drug with huge potential is, as the hon. Lady has mentioned, Herceptin, which has been licensed and is available to patients in Northern Ireland for use in advanced breast cancer. Early results from clinical trials indicated potential benefits for suitable patients with early-stage breast cancer, which understandably led to calls from patients and their elected representatives, including the hon. Lady, for Herceptin to be made more widely available for this new indication.
	I took the view thenI still hold it nowthat the decision to use Herceptin or any other drug in a new way should always be a clinical decision and that it should not be driven by political campaigns or the media, although I recognise the role that the media may play in drawing further attention to the positive effects of certain drugs. In that specific context and in what must be regarded as exceptional circumstances, I announced on 11 November that doctors should be free to make clinical decisions about the prescription of Herceptin for patients in the earlier stages of breast cancer. It was also important, as I made clear on 11 November, that despite what was undoubtedly an excellent campaign in the media, and an excellent campaign fought by a number of politicians for the prescription of Herceptin for early-stage breast cancer, few people in that campaign discussed the negative effects of Herceptin, and the extremely serious side effects reported in The Lancet, which may occur in some patients and which may include heart failure.

Iris Robinson: Would the Minister accept that if someone is diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, and despite, possibly, the downside of using a drug, if that drug gives people hope they will ask to be the guinea pigs, as might be said; and that we cannot fault people for wanting something that possibly offers a higher percentage positive outcome than a negative one?

Shaun Woodward: Of course we could not fault anybody who is facing a life-threatening illness for asking for a new treatment. It follows also that we have a responsibility to ensure that because a patient asks for something, they are prescribed something that will make them better. Further, it follows that if we are aware of serious side effects that may occur, we have a responsibility to make them aware of serious side effects.
	It is worth remembering that in Northern Ireland we have a very good record of dealing with breast cancer. Obviously, no doctor would want to prescribe a drug for a patient that may lead that patient to an even worse condition as a result of the application of that drug. I am reminding the hon. Lady that when we have campaigns for the prescription of drugs, often the downside of prescribing the drugs is forgotten. There is a responsibility in media campaigns and in political campaigns, when we are trying to get the application of certain drugs, to be responsible in telling patients, Yes, let us all hope that this is a wonder drug. I think that every Member of this place would want to recognise that if Herceptin holds out that hope for women in the early stages of breast cancer, it would indeed be a wonder drug if it turned out to be everything that everyone hopes of it. However, we are not yet sure of that. It is extremely important, particularly important for very vulnerable people who are facing life-threatening illnesses, that expectations are not raised to a point that we cannot at this stage fulfil.
	I am committed to improving access to specialist medicines that offer the potential for significant improvement in patient care. In recent years we have made some progress, although we still have further to go.
	For example, the number of people receiving anti-TNF treatment for severe inflammatory arthritis has doubled between April 2004 and April 2005. In April, 178 people were on these drugs. There are now 361 on them. This represents an additional investment in this one area alone of about 2 million.
	There has also been a significant increase in the number of people with multiple sclerosis receiving disease-modifying therapies such as beta interferon. The number of people receiving these drugs has increased from 442 in April 2003 to 577 at present. This represents about 17 per cent. of people with MS in Northern Ireland, and compares favourably with other areas of the UK. New drugs have also been made available to combat hepatitis C, HIV, inherited genetic disorders and cancer.
	Not for one moment should I or anybody in my Department be complacent. Despite the increased number of patients receiving specialist medicines, the hon. Lady rightly draws our interest to the numbers of people waiting for these drugs. I share with her the concern for the number of patients with severe inflammatory arthritis waiting for anti-TNF treatment, and the numbers waiting for treatment for MS. As the hon. Lady said, 146 patients are currently waiting to begin disease-modifying treatment for MS. Some of these patients have been waiting for more than 12 months.

Peter Bone: Last week, the Secretary of State for Health led us to believe that nobody in the UK had to wait more than six months for treatment. That needs to be corrected because, to me, that is fundamentally untrue.

Shaun Woodward: Unfortunately, I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend. I am the Minister with responsibility for health in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly we will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
	Four hundred and fifty-six patients are currently waiting to begin anti-TNF treatment for severe inflammatory arthritis. Some have been waiting for more than two years, in pain and frustrated that they cannot access the treatment they need. I agree with all hon. Members that that is intolerable. Behind every waiting list there are desperate personal stories of patients experiencing great difficulty because of their condition.
	We intend to improve access to these drugs, which undoubtedly have the potential to transform patients' lives. We will not be able to turn the current position around overnight. I have, however, taken initial steps to bring about real improvements. First, an additional 5 million has already been invested to improve access to specialist medicines in Northern Ireland in the current year.
	Secondly, I expect to be able to invest a further 9 million in 200607. That money will be invested to fund new drug treatments and the infrastructure required to administer them. Next year, there will be significant additional investment in anti-TNF drugs, beta interferon for MS, and existing and new specialist medicines for cancer treatment. The additional investment of 9 million will help to reduce waiting lists for specialist treatments and to ensure that patients in Northern Ireland have access to the very latest specialist drugs. But even those investments will not be enough to meet the growing demand for new and existing drugs. Resources and funding will always be an issue. If we want these drugs, the Government have a responsibility to work out how we are going to pay for them.
	The hon. Lady is aware that next week I will bring forward my proposals for water charges in Northern Ireland. Although I know that she and her hon. Friends bitterly resist those proposals, it is worth putting it on the record that the money that will come from water charges in Northern Ireland will bring an additional 300 million into the Exchequer over the next three years. We can put that money into essential services in Northern Ireland. I understand that until now the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have resisted the introduction of water charges. However, it is important that she face up to the fact that when she asks for more money for drugsI absolutely understand that we have a responsibility to find the money for those drugs and to deal with the waiting listswe in Northern Ireland have a responsibility, where we can, to find that money from our own resources. That is appropriate if we are to create parity with the rest of England, Wales and Scotland.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: What assessment has the Minister made of the savings that will accrue from the changes in the governance of health in Northern Ireland outlined in the proposals published this week under the review of public administration? Will he give a commitment that savings that accrue from the structural changes in the health service will be channelled towards extra funding for specialist treatments?

Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. As I said this week in my statement on reform of the health service in Northern Ireland, the cost of administering the health service and social services in Northern Ireland is some 155 million. We have a population of just over 1.7 million people. That is about the same as Kent, yet Kent has fewer than 10 trusts and we have 19. We have four boards that in effect work as strategic health authorities. I propose to turn the 19 trusts into five plus an ambulance service trust and to get rid of the four boards, which employ 600 people, and replace them with one strategic health authority. Also, four patient councils will be replaced by one patient council.
	I hope that at least 15 millionperhaps 30 millioncan be found out of the current cost of running health and social services. I have already undertaken that all the money from the savings that are achieved by reforming the health service infrastructure should go into front-line patient services and into doing something about the application of new drugs and the misery that people suffer while waiting for them.

Iris Robinson: Although my point is not about drug availability, have the Government made an assessment of the savings that will accrue through our introduction of the no-smoking ban in public places in Northern Ireland? That will have a major effect on all sorts of illnesses that derive from smoking.

Shaun Woodward: We did that when we made the impact assessment. In the long-term, the proposals will save a huge amount of money. Three thousand people a year die from a preventable illness caused by or related to smoking and passive smoking. However, in the short-term, we are unlikely to experience any savings because, regrettably, much of the damage will have already been done to people and the health service should look after them, regardless of whether they should have smoked.
	I intend to put money into health promotion campaigns to encourage people to stop smoking and into cessation services to enable people to stop smoking. In the short term, I expect to spend more money on encouraging people to stop smoking than will accrue in savings.
	Infrastructure savings can undoubtedly be made given the inefficiency and the waste of the bureaucracy of the current health and social services system. As I said earlier this week, that is not a reflection on the staffthe doctors, nurses, consultants or many people who form part of the secretariat. We have managed to create a highly inefficient system in Northern Ireland that is too bureaucratic. We can slim it down and put the 30 million into drugs and patient services.

Nigel Dodds: I am interested in the amount of money that the Under-Secretary is talking about saving and putting into front-line services. We are all in favour of that. When is that money likely to find its way to front-line services?

Shaun Woodward: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in the review of public administration could take three to four years to be implemented. Although the proposals that I announced this week are related to the RPA, they are not dependent on it. I intend to change the number of trusts from 19 to five plus one and to start work on it in January 2006, with a view to the five new trusts being up and running for April 2007. There will be redundancy costs and I anticipate that the substantial savings will probably not start for the best part of 18 to 24 months. However, I am ensuring that, for the long-term future of people in Northern Ireland, we make the decisions now and tackle the issues. That means that we can deal with the outrageous, intolerable and almost immoral waiting lists for the drugs that we are considering.
	We will therefore be relentless in driving through the reforms to pay for the drugs. Again, I wish to add a cautionary note. Despite additional investment in the next two years, the changes that I am making in the efficiency structures of the health service of Northern Ireland, the Appleby report and the savings that will derive from the RPA, demand will continue to grow.
	Matching resources to that demand will always involve making difficult choices and selecting priorities. The emergence of new specialist medicines has provided an opportunity to treat diseases that were considered untreatable until recently. Patients have the right to expect to be able to access those medicines when they need them.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Its guidelines currently have no formal status in Northern Ireland. The Department is finalising links with NICE which will give its guidance formal status in Northern Ireland. I expect the new arrangements with NICE will be in place by spring 2006.
	I would prefer to deal with the hon. Lady's specific points in writing. They are very specific and they should be given the proper consideration that they deserve. The current waiting lists for some specialist medicines are a serious priority for the health service in Northern Ireland. We will make improvements as quickly as we possibly can. The hon. Lady made her case strongly this afternoon and I shall do everything I can to improve access to the drugs that she mentioned and ensure that the new treatments and new drugs that people want in Northern Ireland are made available as quickly and as effectively andcriticallyas safely as possible.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Four o'clock.